"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:b16ogp$v5m$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Ben Woodhead" <zander@echotech.ca> wrote in message news:b16c2o$n78$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Basically what I mean is something to compile. Something that you can
> check
> > the code generation against. A possible example would be a program that tests dynamic arrays, it would be good to check regressions as well.
>
> Check out the unit test feature of D.

I think he meant something more like a validation suite (which could be implemented as unit tests).  That would let all the budding D-compiler writers out there ensure that they had implemented all the language features correctly.


Ken Carpenter

"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer@directvinternet.com> wrote in message news:b18081$p1k$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > You could try version(broken) <g>
> I meant a predefined version that is always enabled.  The opposite of
> version(none).

version(0)

> > > Also I'm not sure what the return type should be for addass;  does the compiler even want a return type for those?
> >
> > That'd be up to the programmer.
>
> So if you write void addass(int rhs) then you can no longer do a += (b +=
c)
> ?

Right!

"Ken Carpenter" <kencr@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:b184gl$ssa$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I think he meant something more like a validation suite (which could be implemented as unit tests).  That would let all the budding D-compiler writers out there ensure that they had implemented all the language features correctly.

I do have the beginnings of one. It isn't thorough, though.

That's spookily similar to version(none) and I think it would be confusing.

Sean

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:b19773$1p9h$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer@directvinternet.com> wrote in message news:b18081$p1k$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > You could try version(broken) <g>
> > I meant a predefined version that is always enabled.  The opposite of
> > version(none).
>
> version(0)

Hello

Ya, ken is right. I was looking for something as a validation suite.

Thanks for your responces.
Ben

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:b19774$1p9h$2@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Ken Carpenter" <kencr@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:b184gl$ssa$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > I think he meant something more like a validation suite (which could be implemented as unit tests).  That would let all the budding D-compiler writers out there ensure that they had implemented all the language features correctly.
>
> I do have the beginnings of one. It isn't thorough, though.
>
>