Better assert's status? (Was: Proposal for std.path replacement)

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.2293.1299467610.4748.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> On Sunday 06 March 2011 18:08:49 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Yah, thing is people work on stuff they care about, not the most urgent
>> stuff - surprise! :o) As such we don't have a ton of proposals for
>> networking and xml, but we do have one (and I won't argue it's a bad
>> one) for rehashing a module that basically worked.

I'm not sure I'd say the current std.path "basically works", but I get what 
you mean.

>
> I _was_ thinking of putting forward a new proposal which includes the unit
> testing functionality that assertPred had which won't end up in an 
> improved
> assert,

Speaking of which: Now that assertPred has been rejected on the grounds of 
an improved assert that doesn't yet exist, what is the current status of the 
improved assert?