assert semantic change proposal

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 19:18:30 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>> Assume(P) defines that the proposition holds. If it does not 
>> involve variables, then it will be free to move anywhere by 
>> the rules of Hoare-logic (and propositional logic)? If 
>> assume(PI==3.14…) can move everywhere, by the rules, then so 
>> can assume(true==false).
>
> See above. Of course we could define our `assume(P)` to define 
> `P` as an axiom directly, but this would be much less useful, 
> because it would have exactly the consequences you write about. 
> And it would be a lot more consistent, too. Surely you wouldn't 
> want `assume(x == 42)` to mean "x is always and everywhere 
> equal to 42", but just "x is equal to 42 when control flow 
> passes this point".

This is unclear. What I wanted to write is: "It would be more 
consistent to use the definition of `assume` that I propose.".