This is indeed a great way to test the output of a single binary.

I am not sure why. For each test you want to declare, you need to call one function and provide it with a name and optionally some tags.

Then for your test library you must call the function `Test.run` once.

Maybe I have used this framework for too long now, but I think it is reasonable. Why do you think that?

Have you tried Tezt? While it was initially developed for writing integration tests, it works pretty well for unit tests and has an extension for supporting PBT too. It has pretty good documentation too: gitlab.com/nomadic-labs...

Dylan, I have never heard about this language before.

Yeah this is very annoying especially that most of the time the naive one with a O(n^2) complexity would be enough and it is a bit annoying to reimplement it anytime I need it.

Blog article is here: research-development.nomadic-labs.com/labelled-typ...

With external dependencies it can be painful, no? Maybe making it opt-in with a suffix could be nice (maybe there are prefixes supported too?).

Do you think that with a language having this "feature" it would be easy to opt-out easily like with an annotation or something similar? And this way, could we get a better dev UX?

La façon dont le contenu est modéré je présume. Pas sûr de savoir ce que ce réseau social compte mettre en place pour ça.