On 2010-11-21 17:20, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2010-11-21 01:23, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday 20 November 2010 08:03:52 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Why don't you use delegates instead of string mixins? For example,
assertExcThrown, could take a delegate which calls the function you want
to test instead of a string that represents the call. The mixin want be
needed as well. Am I missing something?
Well, delegates wouldn't be a bad idea, but they're unwieldy too. Would
you rather write
assertExcThrown!Exception((){func(param1, param2);});
or
mixin(assertExcThrown!(Exception, `func(param1, param2)`));
I would go with the delegate, but when you format the code like that it
doesn't look any good (btw, no need for the extra pair of empty
parentheses). I think this looks better:
assertExcThrown!Exception({
func(param1, param2);
});
And BTW, D needs a better way to pass a delegates to a function,
something like the syntax that can be used in Scala:
assertExcThrown!Exception {
func(param1, param2);
}
This is possible, but too surprising:
assertExcThrown!Exception = {
func(param1, param2);
};
with lazy:
assertExcThrown!Exception = func(param1, param2);
There's also the operator overload abuse which overloads opIn:
assertExcThrown!Exception in {
func(param1, param2);
};
--
/Jacob Carlborg
