On Sunday, 28 February 2016 at 12:59:53 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Saturday, 27 February 2016 at 11:31:53 UTC, Joakim wrote:
On Saturday, 27 February 2016 at 11:27:39 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 2/27/2016 1:12 AM, Atila Neves wrote:
I've had similar problems in the past with template mixins.
It seems D's
compile-time features don't mix with any kind of separate
compilation, which is
a shame.
Any ideas on how unit tests should be named?
Why has the additional count been added? You're already using
the line number to differentiate unit test blocks. For unit
test blocks that are all on one line? ;)
I guess that makes sense. And it'd link!
Atila
You could always add an additional number to uniquely identify
them if there are multiple unittests on one line. It would seem
weird to have a special case in the grammar for unittests.
