On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 08:40:50PM +0000, eles via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Thursday, 25 September 2014 at 15:58:11 UTC, eles wrote: > >On Thursday, 25 September 2014 at 13:50:10 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: > >>On 25/09/14 09:38, Atila Neves wrote: > >> > > >Andrei spoke about an idiom that they constantly use at Facebok, > >because there aparrently nobody runs *main and unittests*. So they > >keep a special empty main for the -unittest version. > > This idiom here: > > http://forum.dlang.org/post/ljr5n7$1leb$1...@digitalmars.com > > "Last but not least, virtually nobody I know runs unittests and then > main. This is quickly becoming an idiom: > > version(unittest) void main() {} > else void main() > { > ... > } > > I think it's time to change that. We could do it the > non-backward-compatible way by redefining -unittest to instruct the > compiler to not run main. Or we could define another flag such as > -unittest-only and then deprecate the existing one.
Please don't deprecate the current -unittest. I regularly find it very useful when in the code-compile-test cycle. I'm OK with introducing -unittest-only for people who want it, but I still like using the current -unittest. T -- Making non-nullable pointers is just plugging one hole in a cheese grater. -- Walter Bright
