assume, assert, enforce, @safe

[Johannes Pfau via Digitalmars-d]

Am Sat, 02 Aug 2014 12:34:54 -0700
schrieb Walter Bright <newshound2 at digitalmars.com>:

> On 8/1/2014 3:58 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > But even if I
> > could think of a better name, I think that we're stuck with -debug
> > at this point.
> 
> One thing that people hate even more than breaking existing code is
> breaking their makefile (or equivalent).
> 
> Makefiles typically are cut&pasted from some other project, with the
> switches copied over without review. Worse, the switches sometimes
> come in from macros, and scripts are written to drive the makefiles,
> and it becomes a wholly unmaintainable tangle.
> 
> Programmers have gotten a lot better about writing clear,
> maintainable code, but I can't say the same for the build process.
> Those are worse than ever.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHgUN_95UAw

Wait - are you arguing that we can't change the name of a compiler flag
because users would have to do a 'search&replace' in their Makefiles,
but breaking existing code (assert/assume) which will be very hard to
track down for users is OK, cause 'that code was broken anyway'?


We could also argue that Makefiles using '-debug' are broken anyway,
cause the name debug doesn't match the behavior of the compiler and
users will likely expect a different behavior.