On Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 15:36:25 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>I would couch this by saying, I don't really think we need anything here. The @("Johnny") is good enough for me. In fact, I'm fine without labeling unittests at all, and just looking at the file/line of the failed tests.
My opinion is that naming a unit test is the wrong approach. If the condition for an enforce
statement fails, it returns an informative message, not a name attached to the enforce
statement. Along those lines, I would prefer this:
unittest {
onFailure("Comparison of transformations failed");
...
}
Naming unit tests would open up other issues. Would you allow recycling of names? There's no reason you couldn't have variable foo and unittest foo, but that would be confusing to someone learning the language. Would you have to use unique unittest names if you import 30 modules written by someone else? This could probably be resolved without great difficulty at the level of language design, but it's all added complexity that you shouldn't deal with when learning a language.