I understand the preference to librarize as much as possible, but
I don't think the desire to sacrifice every possible bit of
convenience to avoid the tiniest changes to the language is
always beneficial. I don't say that implementing everything
inside the compiler is good either though, but in many cases some
slight changes to the language can make the library solution so
much more simple and elegant.
In this case, allowing to name a unittest should be a very simple
language change that'll make any library implementation of the
rest of the feature more elegant to use, simpler to implement,
and more consistent with alternative library implementations.
Another argument in favor of language solution - sometimes the
unittests take the better part of the compilation process,
especially when the project is a heavily-templated library(Phobos
is a prime example). When working on a bug discovered by a
unittest, that means you either have to either build all
unittests every time you want to check your changes, or copy the
unittest code a `main` function and work on it there. If unittest
names are part of the language, it could be possible to instruct
the compiler to only build a single unittest, which will make the
iterations much faster.
