assert semantic change proposal

[Vlad Levenfeld via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 8 August 2014 at 14:27:56 UTC, H. S. Teoh via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 07:15:22PM +1000, Daniel Murphy via 
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d"  wrote in message
>> news:mailman.684.1407434193.16021.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>> 
>> >Hmph. Now it's making me wonder if preconditions should be 
>> >treated as
>> >a *single* assert outside the body of 'in{}', rather than 
>> >allowing
>> >individual asserts inside. Perhaps the body of 'in{}' should 
>> >return a
>> >boolean where false indicates a failed precondition,
>> 
>> I think that ship has sailed.
>
> I know. It was more of a wish than anything.
>
>
> T

Since the ship HAS sailed... why must contracts be elided with 
--release? Seems to me if asserts go away, then eliding in and 
out is redundant. It'd be nice if I could put all my recoverable 
pre and post conditions inside those blocks as well. Just for 
organization's sake.