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

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Sunday 06 March 2011 21:57:30 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "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?

There's an enhancement request for it:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5547

I have no idea of any work is actually being done on it or not. It hasn't 
actually been assigned to anyone yet, for whatever that's worth. Honestly, it 
wouldn't surprise me if it doesn't happen for a while. I'm not sure that anyone 
who is capable of doing it is particularly motivated to do it (though I'm not 
sure that they're _not_ either). It was clear that a number of people wanted 
assert to be smarter rather than having assertPred, but it isn't clear that 
assert is going to be made smarter any time soon. I suspect that it will be a 
while before it's done. We'll have to wait and see though.

- Jonathan M Davis