assert semantic change proposal

David Bregman via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Thu Aug 7 11:20:19 PDT 2014


On Thursday, 7 August 2014 at 18:02:08 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> I don't see how this will work out. If it is truly unreachable 
> then you don't need any assume

I just gave you a concrete example of where assume(false) might 
be useful for optimizing a switch statement. Just because it is 
truly unreachable doesn't mean the compiler is aware of that.

>
> It doesn't make any sense to me since I don't see how you would 
> discriminate between your Ps.
>
> {P1}
> while(true) skip; endwhile
> {P2}
>
> How do you define P1 and P2 to be different?

I'm not sure how you'd define them to be the same. They're 
different lines of code, for one thing.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list