assert(condition[, message]) patch

[Joseph Lisee]

In article <e5l5v8$1g7j$1 at digitaldaemon.com>,
 Tom S <h3r3tic at remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> wrote:

> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> > Because not all the users will have access to the source, or be inclined to
> > see it. Unless the user get's a readable/understandable assert message
> > he/she might not get enough information to actually reproduce a test case
> > for the developer to peruse.
> > 
> > Walter, this is a no-brainer, please put it in.
> 
> ++votes;
> 
> /+
> when you release your app to some testing team, you might want to leave 
> asserts in. While an error message containing the line number and 
> filename could be helpful, an additional message could be priceless. 
> E.g. assert(fileNameContainsNoSpaces(foo)); won't tell you that the 
> 'foo' really was something like '^&^34 5+23 3(43D678[SAFer6_[]' which 
> might mean some mem corruption or forgetting a .dup somewhere in your 
> code. You'd instead go searching for some logic problems that wouldn't 
> solve the problem.
> +/

I vote for the assert(condition, "msg"), construct as well.

CXX Test and JUnit have spoiled me.  You can't even do assert(1 == 0 && 
"The laws of math have been changed"), which is trick I use in the C++ 
all the time.  Is having a message with the assert going to hurt 
anything?

-Joseph Lisee