assert semantic change proposal

[David Bregman via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 7 August 2014 at 18:02:08 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> I don't see how this will work out. If it is truly unreachable 
> then you don't need any assume

I just gave you a concrete example of where assume(false) might 
be useful for optimizing a switch statement. Just because it is 
truly unreachable doesn't mean the compiler is aware of that.

>
> It doesn't make any sense to me since I don't see how you would 
> discriminate between your Ps.
>
> {P1}
> while(true) skip; endwhile
> {P2}
>
> How do you define P1 and P2 to be different?

I'm not sure how you'd define them to be the same. They're 
different lines of code, for one thing.