assert semantic change proposal

[David Bregman via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 01:39:25 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> 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.

No, intention is orthogonal to this. Again, this is all about the 
pros and cons of changing the *actual* semantics of assert.