Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
>
> In particular, needing to pass LineInfo() to assertExcThrown!() to know the
> file
> and line number was disliked (though it was by far the best solution that I'd
> been able to come up with).
Not sure if this helps, but if you default-initialize template function
On Friday, November 19, 2010 11:37:16 Sean Kelly wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
> > In particular, needing to pass LineInfo() to assertExcThrown!() to know
> > the file and line number was disliked (though it was by far the best
> > solution that I'd been able to come up with).
>
> Not sure if t
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2010 11:37:16 Sean Kelly wrote:
> > Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
> > > In particular, needing to pass LineInfo() to assertExcThrown!() to know
> > > the file and line number was disliked (though it was by far the best
> > > solution that I'd been able t
On Friday 19 November 2010 11:59:18 Sean Kelly wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
> > On Friday, November 19, 2010 11:37:16 Sean Kelly wrote:
> > > Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
> > > > In particular, needing to pass LineInfo() to assertExcThrown!() to
> > > > know the file and line number was disliked (th
Sean Kelly, el 19 de noviembre a las 14:59 me escribiste:
> Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
>
> > On Friday, November 19, 2010 11:37:16 Sean Kelly wrote:
> > > Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
> > > > In particular, needing to pass LineInfo() to assertExcThrown!() to know
> > > > the file and line number was disli
On Friday 19 November 2010 12:39:20 Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Sean Kelly, el 19 de noviembre a las 14:59 me escribiste:
> > Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 19, 2010 11:37:16 Sean Kelly wrote:
> > > > Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
> > > > > In particular, needing to pass LineInfo() to a
Leandro Lucarella Wrote:
> Sean Kelly, el 19 de noviembre a las 14:59 me escribiste:
> >
> > This should work:
> >
> > void func(string x = __FILE__, T...)(T args);
> >
> > D allows defaulted template arguments to occur before non-defaulted ones.
>
> And what is func!("blah")(); is supposed to
Jonathan M Davis, el 19 de noviembre a las 13:24 me escribiste:
> On Friday 19 November 2010 12:39:20 Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > Sean Kelly, el 19 de noviembre a las 14:59 me escribiste:
> > > Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
> > > > On Friday, November 19, 2010 11:37:16 Sean Kelly wrote:
> > > > > Jonath
On 19-nov-10, at 23:44, Sean Kelly wrote:
Leandro Lucarella Wrote:
Sean Kelly, el 19 de noviembre a las 14:59 me escribiste:
This should work:
void func(string x = __FILE__, T...)(T args);
D allows defaulted template arguments to occur before non-
defaulted ones.
I wasn't aware that __
On 2010-11-19 19:16, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Updated code: http://is.gd/hqPb2
Okay. As mentioned before, I have helper unit test functions which I use heavily
in std.datetime and which are pretty much going to have to either end up as
private helper functions in std.datetime or actually get adde
I'm not particularly fond of this interface and think that a solution with a
delegate / lazy or alias template parameter would be more convenient.
However, until we have ast macros I do see the added value in this approach.
Some remarks about the api, not a proper review of the code itself:
- c
What about debug vs release compilation for this new module?
We know we have assert for debug mode, and enforce for release mode
(except the special assert false case). If I want assertExcThrown to
be compiled in release mode it seems I'd need an enforced version of
it, possibly called enforceExcT
On Saturday 20 November 2010 08:03:52 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> Why don't you use delegates instead of string mixins? For example,
> assertExcThrown, could take a delegate which calls the function you want
> to test instead of a string that represents the call. The mixin want be
> needed as well. Am
On Saturday 20 November 2010 10:16:55 Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:
> I'm not particularly fond of this interface and think that a solution with
> a delegate / lazy or alias template parameter would be more convenient.
> However, until we have ast macros I do see the added value in this
> approach.
>
On Saturday 20 November 2010 10:23:36 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> What about debug vs release compilation for this new module?
>
> We know we have assert for debug mode, and enforce for release mode
> (except the special assert false case). If I want assertExcThrown to
> be compiled in release mode i
On Saturday 20 November 2010 16:23:32 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> The lazy solution sounds pretty good actually. Can anyone think of any real
> downsides to that? So, it would look something like
>
> assertExcThrown(E : Throwable, T)(lazy T, string file = __FILE__, size_t
> line = __LINE__);
Wait.
On 2010-11-21 01:23, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday 20 November 2010 08:03:52 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Why don't you use delegates instead of string mixins? For example,
assertExcThrown, could take a delegate which calls the function you want
to test instead of a string that represents the cal
On 2010-11-21 02:34, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday 20 November 2010 16:23:32 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
The lazy solution sounds pretty good actually. Can anyone think of any real
downsides to that? So, it would look something like
assertExcThrown(E : Throwable, T)(lazy T, string file = __FI
On Sunday 21 November 2010 04:19:51 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2010-11-21 02:34, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Saturday 20 November 2010 16:23:32 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >> The lazy solution sounds pretty good actually. Can anyone think of any
> >> real downsides to that? So, it would look somet
On 2010-11-21 14:06, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday 21 November 2010 04:19:51 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2010-11-21 02:34, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday 20 November 2010 16:23:32 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
The lazy solution sounds pretty good actually. Can anyone think of any
real downside
On Sunday 21 November 2010 05:44:15 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> I don't know if the compiler can inline delegates or not but if it can I
> think this case would be very easy for the compiler to inline the delegate.
It can't. That's one of the big issues with enforce. At the moment, it actually
makes
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Saturday 20 November 2010 10:16:55 Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:
>> I'm not particularly fond of this interface and think that a solution
>> with a delegate / lazy or alias template parameter would be more
>> convenient. However, until we have ast macros I do see the added
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2010-11-21 01:23, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Saturday 20 November 2010 08:03:52 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>> Why don't you use delegates instead of string mixins? For example,
>>> assertExcThrown, could take a delegate which calls the function you want
>>> to test instea
On 2010-11-21 17:20, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2010-11-21 01:23, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday 20 November 2010 08:03:52 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Why don't you use delegates instead of string mixins? For example,
assertExcThrown, could take a delegate which calls t
On Sunday 21 November 2010 08:11:06 Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Saturday 20 November 2010 10:16:55 Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:
> >> I'm not particularly fond of this interface and think that a solution
> >> with a delegate / lazy or alias template parameter would be mor
Most recent code: http://is.gd/hO8HP
Per the suggestions in this thread, I changed the string mixin templates to
functions using lazy. I also added assertOpBinary and made assertOpOpAssign()
call opOpAssign() directly. Finally, I made assertEqual() and assertNotEqual()
templatized on a predicat
On 2010-11-26 09:10, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Any more feedback on my potential std.unittests, or is looking good overall? I
definitely think that it's better than when I first posted it, so the feedback
thus far has definitely been helpful, and I do find these functions extremely
useful in my own
On Saturday 27 November 2010 09:00:36 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2010-11-26 09:10, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Any more feedback on my potential std.unittests, or is looking good
> > overall? I definitely think that it's better than when I first posted
> > it, so the feedback thus far has definitel
On 2010-11-27 21:36, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday 27 November 2010 09:00:36 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2010-11-26 09:10, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Any more feedback on my potential std.unittests, or is looking good
overall? I definitely think that it's better than when I first posted
it, so
On Saturday 27 November 2010 15:30:23 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2010-11-27 21:36, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Saturday 27 November 2010 09:00:36 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> >> On 2010-11-26 09:10, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >>> Any more feedback on my potential std.unittests, or is looking good
> >>
On 2010-11-28 01:17, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday 27 November 2010 15:30:23 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2010-11-27 21:36, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday 27 November 2010 09:00:36 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2010-11-26 09:10, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Any more feedback on my potential std.
31 matches
Mail list logo