• monkyyy (36/36) Apr 28 `unittest => 1==1;`
• Timon Gehr (10/23) Apr 28 The previous proposal with `unittest(expression);` was better.

monkyyy <crazymonkyyy gmail.com> writes:

`unittest => 1==1;`
`unittest math_still_works => 1==1;//generates ddoc`

I see roughly 3 criticisms to my last suggestion

1. unittest without docs are bad
2. this is a bug; that should already work (???)
3. we may want agrumented unittests in the future

so handling the arguments out of order



what? whatever i'll simplify the syntax



by not using ()'s I assume it will leave open the door for 
whatever this theory is



I dont care about this in the slightest but... whatever

`unittest [name] => code;`

if optional `name` exists generate a header and `code` in ddoc

name will replace'_'s with spaces, put it in a header followed by 
a code block of the code

so given this code

```d
/**
* a very important function
*/

auto foo=>[1,2,3,4,5];
unittest foo_returns_an_array=>foo==[1,2,3,4,5];

```

will generate the docs

```md



a very important function



```d
foo==[1,2,3,4,5];
```

```

Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:

On 4/28/24 15:47, monkyyy wrote:
 `unittest => 1==1;`
 `unittest math_still_works => 1==1;//generates ddoc`
 
 I see roughly 3 criticisms to my last suggestion
 
 1. unittest without docs are bad
 2. this is a bug; that should already work (???)
 3. we may want agrumented unittests in the future
 
 so handling the arguments out of order...
 
 ```
 

The previous proposal with `unittest(expression);` was better.






shorthand `out` syntax already show how to do it.

So I think all of those objections should be dismissed and you got it 
right the first time.

OTOH `unittest => expression;` is weird because everywhere else `...=>r` 
just means `...{ return r; }`