assert semantic change proposal

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 7 August 2014 at 06:04:38 UTC, David Bregman wrote:
> On Thursday, 7 August 2014 at 03:54:12 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
> wrote:
>> «The __assume(0) statement is a special case.»
>>
>> So, it does not make perfect sense. If it did, it would not be 
>> a special case?
>
> It doesn't have to be a special case if you define it in the 
> right way - in terms of control flow. Then the interpretation 
> of assume(false) as unreachable follows quite naturally:
>
> instead of defining assume(x) to mean that x is an axiom, 
> define assume(x) to mean that P=>x is an axiom, where P is the 
> proposition that control flow reaches the assume statement.
>
> so assume(false) actually means P=>false, or simply !P
>
> and !P means !(control flow reaches the assume), as desired.

Let's try the opposite way instead:

assume(Q)
if(B1){
    if(B2){
    }
}

implies:

assume(Q)
if(B1){
    assume(B1&&Q)
    if(B2){
       assume(B1&&B2&&Q)
    }
}

So your P in the inner if statement is  B1&&B2.

However assume(P&&false) is still a fallacy…

Or?