assume, assert, enforce, @safe

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 07/31/2014 10:33 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 05:17:13PM -0300, Ary Borenszweig via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> >On 7/31/14, 4:54 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> [...]
>>> > >But doesn't that just mean that you shouldn't use -release, period?
>>> > >AFAIK, the only thing -release does it to remove various safety
>>> > >checks, like array bounds checks, asserts, contracts (which are
>>> > >generally written using asserts), etc.. I'd think that Ary wouldn't
>>> > >want any of these disabled, so he shouldn't use -release at all.
>>> > >There's already -O and -inline to enable what people generally expect
>> >>from a release build, so -release wouldn't really be needed at all.
>>> > >
>>> > >Right?
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >T
>>> > >
>> >
>> >That's exactly my point, thank you for summing that up:-)
>> >
>> >I don't see the point of having a "-release" flag. It should be
>> >renamed to "-a-bit-faster-but-unsafe".
> It's probably named -release because traditionally, turning off asserts
> and bounds checks is what is normally done when building a C/C++ project
> for release. (C/C++ don't have built-in bounds checks, but I've seen
> projects that use macros for manually implementing this, which are
> #define'd away when building for release.)
>
>

The suggestion is not: 'make -release disable assertions.' it is 
'failing assertions are undefined behaviour in -release'.