Assert and the optional Message

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Saturday, March 10, 2012 16:53:42 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-03-09 18:59, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > This opens up the question of, what's the *recommended* way of writing
> > unittests that check for these sorts of stuff?
> > 
> > For example, I believe in being thorough in unit tests, so I like to use
> > them to verify that the complicated in-contract I just wrote actually
> > prevents the erroneous calls that I *think* it prevents. But if catching
> > AssertError's may leave the program in an undefined state, then that
> > pretty much invalidates any further testing past that point (the program
> > may appear to work when compiled with -funittest but actually fail in
> > release mode).
> > 
> > I agree, though, that catching Errors outside of unittests is a very,
> > very bad idea in general.
> 
> I don't see what's so bad in making AssertError an exception instead of
> an error.

Then

catch(Excetion e) {}

would catch it. This would be a huge problem in normal code. Assertions are 
supposed to kill the program. This is specifically mentioned in TDPL.

- Jonathan M Davis