assert semantic change proposal

[eles via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 02:43:17 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 01:39:25 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> On 8/6/2014 8:18 AM, David Bregman wrote:

> *I think this is important: is not only a tested condition that 
> is then handled, but a tested condition exposing a "does not 
> work as intended". It looks more like a kind of "this code 
> should be unreachable".

nitpicking: is not "my program does not behave like expected (for 
example, because the config file is broken)" but "my code wasn't 
supposed to say that and I did not mean to write such code"