assert(condition[, message]) patch

[Sean Kelly]

pragma wrote:
> 
> Another way to look at it is in the use of static assert().  With the
> compile-time regexp processor(s) out there, they halt on static assert() and
> then cough up some rudimentary explaination as to *why* using pragma(msg).  I
> wouldn't even consider either implementation usable without the msg/assert
> idiom, so I don't really use them apart from each other.  In fact, I'll argue
> that its impossible to meaningfully extend the compiler/D-grammar through
> templates without using the two together; the library user just wouldn't have a
> clue otherwise.

Good point.  If this change were made, would it apply to static assert 
as well?  It would certainly be nice.


Sean