assert semantic change proposal

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 08/04/2014 12:15 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> I suspect it is one of those ideas of Walter's that has consequences
>> that reach further than anyone foresees..... but that's OK, because it
>> is fundamentally the correct course of action, it's implications
>> foreseen and unforeseen will be correct.
>
> Agreed.

No, please hold on. Walter is not a supernatural being.

>
> Walter has always meant assert the way he discusses it today.

This argument has no merit. Please stop bringing it up.

>
> That said, should we proceed carefully about realizing this advantage? Of course; that's a given.

That is reasonable.

>But I think it's very important to fully understand
> the advantages of gaining an edge over the competition.

Note that this is achievable without claiming the Humpty Dumpty 
privilege once again. Furthermore the potential for the development of 
concepts is actually usually larger if concepts stay properly separated 
from the beginning.

E.g. the current proposal already has the issue that an assumption of 
unreachability cannot be expressed in the straightforward way:

switch(x){
     // ...
     default:
         assert(0); // cannot be optimized away in -release
}