assert semantic change proposal

[Sean Kelly via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 7 August 2014 at 17:44:02 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d"  wrote in message 
> news:mailman.674.1407424873.16021.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>
>> > And we've also got asserts in pre-conditions, which are 
>> > recoverable by
>> > definition.
>>
>> Huh, what? I thought asserts in pre-conditions are 
>> non-recoverable,
>> because they imply that user code has broken the contract 
>> governing the
>> use of that function.
>
> I meant asserts in pre-conditions when used with inheritance.  
> It's a pass if any of the preconditions pass, so the compiler 
> runs them in turn and catches all but the last.

Oh man, I forgot about this.  I wonder how this works from a 
codegen perspective.  Is precondition inheritance properly 
implemented yet?