assert semantic change proposal

David Bregman via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Tue Aug 5 16:18:04 PDT 2014


On Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 22:25:59 UTC, Jeremy Powers via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>
>> You're using a nonstandard definition of undefined behavior. 
>> Undefined
>> behavior has a precise meaning, that's why Timon linked the 
>> wiki article
>> for you.
>>
>> The regular definition of assert does not involve any 
>> undefined behavior,
>> only the newly proposed one.
>>
>
> But the 'newly proposed one' is the definition that I have been 
> using all
> along.

OK, but my point was you were using a different definition of 
undefined behavior. We can't communicate if we aren't using the 
same meanings of words.

> The 'regular' definition of assert that you claim is what I see 
> as
> the redefinition - it is a definition based on the particular
> implementation of assert in other languages, not on the 
> conceptual idea of
> assert as I understand it (and as it appears to be intended in 
> D).

The 'regular' definition of assert is used in C, C++ and for the 
last >10years (afaik), in D. If you want to change it you need a 
good justification. I'm not saying such justification necessarily 
exist doesn't either, maybe it does but I have not seen it.

>
> This appears to be the root of the argument, and has been 
> circled
> repeatedly... it's not my intent to restart another round of 
> discussion on
> that well traveled ground, I just wanted to state my support 
> for the
> definition as I understand it.

I disagree. I don't think the fact that some people already had 
the new definition in mind before is really all that relevant. 
That's in the past. This is all about the pros and cons of 
changing it now and for the future.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list