Jens Mueller: > I agree with bearophile. Unit testing can be implemented on top of the > language and shouldn't be put into it.
This is not what I have said. I was talking about option IV I have explained here: http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=107997 This means I accept the built-in unit test system, but I think it's wrong to make it do everything you want from an unit test system. So the built-in one has to give the basic features (like giving a name to each unit test) that are later used by the library-defined unit test system. Bye, bearophile
