assert semantic change proposal

[Matthias Bentrup via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 18:51:05 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 17:59:06 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>> The crux is the axiom that is being defined. When you write 
>> `assume(condition)`, the axiom is not:
>>
>>    "`condition` is true."
>>
>> but:
>>
>>    "When control flow reaches this point, then `condition` is 
>> true."
>>
>> It's not an unconditionally true condition :-P
>
> Assume(X) does not provide a condition. It defines a 
> proposition/relation to be true.
>
> If you define a relation between two constants then it has to 
> hold globally. Otherwise they are not constant…
>
> 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).

Ah, I had a different understanding of assume, i.e. placing an
assume(A) at some point in code adds not the axiom A, but rather
the axiom "control flow reaches this spot => A".

So if there was a different operator, assume_here() or so, with
the semantics that I incorrectly assumed for assume(), could the
optimizer insert assume_here() for assert() ?