On Saturday, 27 June 2015 at 17:37:13 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Saturday, 27 June 2015 at 16:44:49 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>> [...]
>
> And disagreement about how idiomatic such style preferences should be is exactly the reason why I will vote "no".
>
> Look at it this way : if this proposal will never get to Phobos, I won't lose anything. It does not have any really important utility I need in standard library. Main thing about this proposal is making certain testing style standard - and thus there is no practical reason to accept any compromises.

I understand your point. _My_ point is that nobody has to use UFCS if they don't want to. In fact, plain asserts could be used too.

Atila

On 26/06/15 17:46, Dicebot wrote:

> Totally. Remember - this is effectively will make specific API a
> language standard which will propagate it to all sort of 3d party
> libraries.

I don't mind :)

> I find it unacceptably unreadable and verbose, to the point
> it will make working with those libraries considerably harder.
>
> I use `test!"=="(a. b)` which is:
> - short
> - robust (supports any binary operator D has)
> - straight to the point (it is about testing, not about what program
> should/must do)

I would say that using strings as template parameters for everything in D is really ugly and a sign of abuse. Soon all D code will be contained in a single string literal passed to some function.

> The fact that examples uncourage UFCS abuse makes it even worse.
> Something that looks like this:
>
> `2.timesTwo.shouldEqual(4)`
>
> .. gets immediately marked as garbage in my book.

So what do you UFCS should be used for, only for arrays/ranges?

> There are also things like `shouldBeFalse` and `shouldBeTrue`. I
> couldn't imagine anyone seriously using names like that until I have
> examined that proposal.

You need to try Ruby ;)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 27/06/15 19:37, Dicebot wrote:

> Main thing about this proposal is making certain
> testing style standard - and thus there is no practical reason to accept
> any compromises.

Great, lets settle with the "should" syntax.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Saturday, 27 June 2015 at 20:42:52 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> `2.timesTwo.shouldEqual(4)`
>>
>> .. gets immediately marked as garbage in my book.
>
> So what do you UFCS should be used for, only for arrays/ranges?

I see two generally legit use cases for UFCS : range pipelines and user literals (`42.seconds`). The way it becomes (ab)used lately is one of major reasons I like the language now notably less than I did ~2 years ago.

On Monday, 20 April 2015 at 13:28:30 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> Original library: http://code.dlang.org/packages/unit-threaded
> PR: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3207
>
> It's my first Phobos PR, I tried reading the wiki and doing what's required but bear with me if I've screwed up somehow.
>
> I wasn't sure whether or not to split the PR. In the end I just took the existing library, edited it a lot and got it ready for review.
>
> Unit test blocks can be named with @Name. They execute in parallel by default but that's only if the default runner is used.
>
> Atila

Bump.

On Monday, 20 July 2015 at 13:20:49 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> On Monday, 20 April 2015 at 13:28:30 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>> Original library: http://code.dlang.org/packages/unit-threaded
>> PR: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3207
>>
>> It's my first Phobos PR, I tried reading the wiki and doing what's required but bear with me if I've screwed up somehow.
>>
>> I wasn't sure whether or not to split the PR. In the end I just took the existing library, edited it a lot and got it ready for review.
>>
>> Unit test blocks can be named with @Name. They execute in parallel by default but that's only if the default runner is used.
>>
>> Atila
>
> Bump.

Bumpity bump?

On Monday, 20 April 2015 at 13:28:30 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> Original library: http://code.dlang.org/packages/unit-threaded
> PR: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3207
>
> It's my first Phobos PR, I tried reading the wiki and doing what's required but bear with me if I've screwed up somehow.
>
> I wasn't sure whether or not to split the PR. In the end I just took the existing library, edited it a lot and got it ready for review.
>
> Unit test blocks can be named with @Name. They execute in parallel by default but that's only if the default runner is used.
>
> Atila

Looks solid. I'm, shamefully, not a heavy user of unit testing but it appears to have everything I typically use from Google Test (C++) and is much more friendly to use thanks to the reflection and attributes.

What's a scenario where you'd want a hidden test?

On 2015-07-22 17:05, Atila Neves wrote:

> Bumpity bump?

So, what you're trying to say is that it's time for a vote ;)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Wednesday, 22 July 2015 at 18:46:37 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2015-07-22 17:05, Atila Neves wrote:
>
>> Bumpity bump?
>
> So, what you're trying to say is that it's time for a vote ;)

Are you volunteering to be the review manager? ;)

Atila