assert semantic change proposal

[Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d]

On 8/6/2014 8:18 AM, David Bregman wrote:

>>
>> 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.

You keep going on the premise that your definition is the intended 
definition. I completely disagree. My understanding of assert has always 
been as Walter has described it. To me, *that* is the existing 
definition and yours is completely new. Nothing is being changed. He's 
just talking about starting to take advantage of it as he has always 
intended to.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com