On Monday 03 January 2011 06:43:24 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 1/3/11 3:38 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: > > On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 06:44:50 +0200, Jonathan M Davis > > > > <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote: > >> So, please have a look at the code. > > > > Just one thing: wouldn't these functions also be useful in contract > > programming (invariants etc.)? Perhaps they should just be added to > > std.exception? > > In fact (without looking at std.unittest) I think it should be grouped > with a simple benchmark facility. That's what the homonym frameworks in > Google's and Facebook's code base do.
I'm afraid that I don't see what unit test helper functions have to do with benchmarking. And I don't believe that we have a benchmarking module at the moment regardless, so if you want to do that, we'd need to create one. The only benchmarking stuff that I'm aware of is the bencharking stuff in std.datetime that SHOO did, which isn't all that much code. I would have thought that unit test helper functions would merit their own module, particularly when I don't see what they have to do with benchmarks. - Jonathan M Davis
