On Friday, 13 May 2016 at 21:00:04 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 5/13/16 4:55 PM, Meta wrote:
When I was new to D and I first saw the `assert(...)` idiom in
an
example in the documentation, it confused me for a minute or
two, but if
you know what `assert` does you can quickly wrap your
On Saturday, 14 May 2016 at 17:48:48 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
So anyway, I think perhaps the simplest solution is to make
ddoc inject the writeln calls (or possibly replace assertions
altogether in the output).
The problem with replacing the assert is the loss of information.
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 03:32:45PM +0200, Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[...]
> Add a new compiler switch (or better yet use a built-in version
> switch) which makes all assertions chatty.
>
> So for a unittest like this:
>
>
> auto sum (a, b) => a + b;
>
> ///
> unittest {
On 5/13/16, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> I'm wondering if we can have a mechanism for documented unit tests to
> have a slightly different showing inside the docs vs. the actual unit test.
>
> For example, let's say we have a function writelnAssert.
On Friday, 13 May 2016 at 21:27:25 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
A potential way to fix this may be marking a unit test as being
a complete example program that assumes the user has installed
proper access to the library. Then it won't compile unless you
add the correct imports, and it's