On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> There are a number of people who have responded positively to my unit test
> functions - including assertPred - as it has moved through the review
> process.
> Please reiterate that positive vote here (or negative if you're so
> inclined).
On Monday 07 February 2011 03:36:33 Jim wrote:
> Not that I have a say in this matter, but although I think the code is
> excellent in technical merits, is not a central part of the problem it
> aims to mend actually an insufficiency in druntime?
>
> I'd rather see the regular, language provided a
Not that I have a say in this matter, but although I think the code is
excellent in technical merits, is not a central part of the problem it aims to
mend actually an insufficiency in druntime?
I'd rather see the regular, language provided assert() fulfilling the needs as
the assertion mechanis
On 02/07/2011 09:30 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
There are a number of people who have responded positively to my unit test
functions - including assertPred - as it has moved through the review process.
Please reiterate that positive vote here (or negative if you're so inclined).
The deadline for
"Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
news:mailman.1363.1297067437.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> There are a number of people who have responded positively to my unit test
> functions - including assertPred - as it has moved through the review
> process.
> Please reiterate that positive vo
There are a number of people who have responded positively to my unit test
functions - including assertPred - as it has moved through the review process.
Please reiterate that positive vote here (or negative if you're so inclined).
The deadline for votes is today.
As it stands, I believe that a
