Correct unittest point: with -> without

[mathias-baumann-sociomantic]

I suspect that's what was intended?

[dlang-bot]

Thanks for your pull request, @mathias-baumann-sociomantic! We are looking forward to reviewing it, and you should be hearing from a maintainer soon.

Some tips to help speed things up:

• smaller, focused PRs are easier to review than big ones

• try not to mix up refactoring or style changes with bug fixes or feature enhancements

• provide helpful commit messages explaining the rationale behind each change

Bear in mind that large or tricky changes may require multiple rounds of review and revision.

Please see CONTRIBUTING.md for more information.

Bugzilla references

Your PR doesn't reference any Bugzilla issue.

If your PR contains non-trivial changes, please reference a Bugzilla issue or create a manual changelog.

[quickfur]

Makes sense to me.

[schveiguy]

The grammar doesn't make sense, even before the change. I'm not sure what the statement in parentheses is trying to say. Can you explain what it means?

[schveiguy]

ping @wilzbach as the original author.

[schveiguy]

OK, I think it came from this comment: #1796 (comment)

So yes, the intent is to say, you can unit test your betterC functions by running without -betterC.

[wilzbach]

I suspect that's what was intended?

Yes, thanks.

Can you explain what it means?

The point was to say that unittest doesn't work with -betterC, but for testing purposes the program can simply compiled and run without -betterC.

[wilzbach]

Thanks.

[schveiguy]

Suggestion (correct grammar, and removing superfluous "as usual"): "testing can be done without the -betterC flag"

[wilzbach]

Suggestion (correct grammar, and removing superfluous "as usual"): "testing can be done without the -betterC flag"

I changed it to your suggestion. Thanks!