Program logic bugs vs input/environmental errors

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 29 September 2014 at 00:47:58 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 9/28/2014 4:18 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d 
> wrote:
>> I don't follow this point.  How can this approach work with 
>> programs that are
>> built with the -release switch?
>
> All -release does is not generate code for assert()s. To leave 
> the asserts in, do not use -release. If you still want the 
> asserts to be in even with -release,
>
>     if (condition) assert(0);

The reason I queried your approach here is because I feel you're 
conflating two things:

     * the _definition_ of an Exception vs. an Error, on which we 
100%
       agree: the former as an anticipated possibility which a 
program
       is committed to try and handle, the latter a failure which 
is
       fundamentally wrong and should not happen under any 
conditions.

     * the way in which a program should report these different 
kinds
       of error.

You seem to be advocating that, by definition, Exceptions and 
Errors should be reported differently (one without, and one with, 
a trace).  I don't at all object to that as a sensible default, 
but I think that the ultimate decision on how Exceptions and 
Errors report themselves should be in the hands of the program 
developer, depending on the use-case of the application.