RE: [Dunit-interest] DUnit.pas redundant

[Morris, C. <ChrisM@SNELLINGCORP.COM>]

> I say that DUnit should be retained for conceptual clearness.
> To include "DUnit" is much better than including "TestFramework".
> I would rather take the code in TestFramework and move it into
> DUnit, just to keep the DUnit name as the primary unit to include.
> 
> -Stefan

Originally, there was only DUnit, then everything was moved into
TestFramework (I'm not sure why -- Juanco and Jeff did that, IIRC). I'm on
both sides of this one -- I think TestFramework is a better name, but if the
whole schmeal is called DUnit, it seems inconsistent. I dunno. 

At this point, I'd rather not go back the way it was simply because that's
less of a change.

Chris