Lutger Wrote:
>
> This syntax should be possible, which also gives syntax highlighting:
>
> expectEquals!q{ myFoo == 3 };
>
> But there is the problem that expectEquals is defined in a module which
> doesn't have access to myFoo. I don't know how to solve that.
>
Template alias parameters han
On 02/06/2010 05:55 AM, Joel Anderson wrote:
On 2/4/2010 4:41 PM, Trip Volpe wrote:
Joel Anderson Wrote:
That's one of the reasons I've wished D had a nicer syntax for the
string mixin format. This one kinda scares people away :p
What kind of syntax do you have in mind?
Making mixins less
On 2/5/2010 8:55 PM, Joel Anderson wrote:
On 2/4/2010 4:41 PM, Trip Volpe wrote:
Joel Anderson Wrote:
That's one of the reasons I've wished D had a nicer syntax for the
string mixin format. This one kinda scares people away :p
What kind of syntax do you have in mind?
Making mixins less obt
On 2/4/2010 4:41 PM, Trip Volpe wrote:
Joel Anderson Wrote:
That's one of the reasons I've wished D had a nicer syntax for the
string mixin format. This one kinda scares people away :p
What kind of syntax do you have in mind?
Making mixins less obtrusive might ease aggravation when they're
Joel Anderson Wrote:
>
> That's one of the reasons I've wished D had a nicer syntax for the
> string mixin format. This one kinda scares people away :p
What kind of syntax do you have in mind?
Making mixins less obtrusive might ease aggravation when they're being used as
boilerplate, but mak
On 2/3/2010 10:27 PM, Trip Volpe wrote:
Joel Anderson Wrote:
You could potentially use a mixin to do this. The resulting code would
look something like this.
void main()
{
int myFoo = 100;
mixin(expectEquals! ( "myFoo == 3" ));
}
Yeah, mixins could work, but they're
Joel Anderson Wrote:
>
> You could potentially use a mixin to do this. The resulting code would
> look something like this.
>
> void main()
> {
>int myFoo = 100;
>mixin(expectEquals! ( "myFoo == 3" ));
> }
Yeah, mixins could work, but they're ugly. ;-)
Forcing the use
On 2/3/2010 9:34 PM, Trip Volpe wrote:
I'm working on a set of handy unit testing accessories for my projects. What
I'd love to achieve is something like this:
expectEqual( myFoo, 3 );
Which, on failure, would result in something along the lines of this diagnostic:
somefile.d:37: Tes
I'm working on a set of handy unit testing accessories for my projects. What
I'd love to achieve is something like this:
expectEqual( myFoo, 3 );
Which, on failure, would result in something along the lines of this diagnostic:
somefile.d:37: Test failure!
Expected: myFoo == 3
