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

[Michel Fortin]

On 2011-03-07 01:20:25 -0500, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> said:

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

I gave it a try even before assertPred was rejected to check 
feasibility, made something in a few hours that should have mostly 
worked, but then realized I've been playing with the wrong assert code. 
There is apparently two code paths for asserts in DMD, one of which I'm 
not sure is used at all, and I took the wrong one to modify. I'll have 
to sort this out and possibly redo all this with the other code path 
(which seems a little more complicated because it relies on a 
per-module generated assert handler for some reason), but this'll have 
to wait until I have more time.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/