Jacob Carlborg wrote: > On 2012-09-21 20:01, Johannes Pfau wrote: > > >I didn't think of setAssertHandler. My changes are perfectly compatible > >with it. > >IIRC setAssertHandler has the small downside that it's used for all > >asserts, not only those used in unit tests? I'm not sure if that's a > >drawback or actually useful. > > That's no problem, there's a predefined version, "unittest", when > you pass the -unittest flag to the compiler: > > version (unittest) > setAssertHandler(myUnitTestSpecificAssertHandler);
But if you have an assert in some algorithm to ensure some invariant or in a contract it will be handled by myUnitTestSpecificAssertHandler. But I think that is not a drawback. Don't you want to no whenever an assert is violated? Jens