Tomek Sowiński napisał: > As I mentioned in bugzilla, it opens the opportunity to kill the unittest > naming problem with the same stone: > > void foo(); > > unittest(owner) { > Log.info("Testing " ~ owner.stringof ~ "..."); > scope(exit) Log.info("Testing " ~ owner.stringof ~ " complete"); > } > > The syntax takes after the out(result) contract. 'owner' is an alias to > the preceding symbol. The overall ROI looks positive, eh?
Nevermind. It's little better than: unittest { alias foo owner; Log.info("Testing " ~ owner.stringof ~ "..."); scope(exit) Log.info("Testing " ~ owner.stringof ~ " complete"); } There must be a way to make it all work elegantly with, say, an IDE's unittest runner, but I won't find it posting at 2:28 a.m. -- Tomek