assert(false) in release == splinter in eye

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Tuesday, October 12, 2010 13:40:32 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 10/12/10 13:58 CDT, Christopher Bergqvist wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
> > <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org
> > 
> > <mailto:SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org>> wrote:
> >     assert(false) could be in an ideal world replaced by an intrinsic
> >     called e.g. halt() that looks and feels like a regular function but
> >     is recognized by the compiler. No new keyword would be needed. But I
> >     don't think that would mark a significant improvement in the
> >     language.
> > 
> > Would it be possible to change the compiler to only treat
> > "assert(false);" specially, avoiding treating "enum a = 0; assert(a);"
> > or more complex constructs that way?
> 
> Question is when to stop. assert(0), assert(false), assert(1 == 0)...
> 
> Andrei

If we were to make that change, I'd say to make it simple and just use assert(0) 
and assert(false), but it's certainly a valid point. Personally, I don't think 
that it's an issue because it's really only going to happpen with compile-time 
constants which wouldn't normally be in an assert statement anyway.

- Jonathan M Davis