checkedint call removal

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 08/02/2014 09:01 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>
> I think at this point it is quite clear that D's assert is about the
> programmer saying this expression evaluates to true or it's a
> programming bug.

That was already obvious to most before the discussion started.

In any case, the way you'd need to put it in order to make a meaningful 
statement is e.g. that such failures abort the program in non-release 
and lead to undefined behaviour in release. Just state the plain semantics.

This behaviour is 'right' by definition, but is not backed up by any 
deeper reason or close-to-universally convincing design rationale. 
Please let it go.

>
>
> If other languages use assert to mean "the compiler must prove this to be true"
> then that's fine for those languages,

Thanks for finally admitting a point like this.

> but it isn't what D's assert is, or can ever be.

It is enough if what D's assert is and has been so far does not change. 
Not using asserts as sources of undefined behaviour when using the 
switch that has traditionally been used to disable them would already be 
sufficient. Why do you think there should be no compromise giving all 
the parties what they want?