assert semantic change proposal

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 07:29:43PM +1000, Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> "Walter Bright"  wrote in message news:lrvglk$25dt$1 at digitalmars.com...
> 
> >Asserts in unittests are not the same as asserts elsewhere. I wasn't
> >a big fan of this, but I was probably the only one :-)
> 
> This has the fun side-effect that asserts in unittest helper functions
> are fatal, while ones in the unittest body are not!
> 
> And we've also got asserts in pre-conditions, which are recoverable by
> definition.

Huh, what? I thought asserts in pre-conditions are non-recoverable,
because they imply that user code has broken the contract governing the
use of that function.


T

-- 
Answer: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion.
Question: Why is top posting bad?