Walter Bright wrote: > Jens Mueller wrote: > >Unit testing can be implemented on top of the > >language and shouldn't be put into it. Somehow I have the feeling that > >too often one tries to extend the language even though the feature could > >be implemented in a library. > > On the other hand, the built-in D unit test ability has been a huge success. > > A unit test facility that is not used is worthless, no matter how > capable it is. The advantage of it being simple and built-in is it > gets used, and I think there's strong evidence that this is true for > D.
Yes. I do not disagree. I like having unittest in the language. Extending the basic built-in unit testing support should not be done inside the language, if it can be done conveniently as a library. And the built-in unit testing is very helpful and necessary. But it should be possible to build extended testing frameworks (as there are in Java, C++, etc.) on top of these. Sorry. My very first sentence was very misleading. I wanted to say that further/advanced unit testing shouldn't be put into the language. We all agree on that, don't we? Maybe we can get a discussion what features are considered useful in a testing framework library and what needs to be changed in the built-in testing to make such a library happen. Jens