Another idiom I wish were gone from phobos/druntime

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 2/4/15 4:37 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Thursday, 5 February 2015 at 00:35:50 UTC, bearophile wrote:
>> Contracts can be read by tools, and they are part of the function
>> signature. Contracts should be encouraged and increased, not discouraged.
>
>
> I agree. Moreover, if the assert fails in the contract, in theory, we
> can point the error at the user's code. An assert inside the function is
> the function's responsibility. An assert in an in contract is the
> caller's responsibility. They're semantically different (even if dmd
> treats them the same way)

Yah I concede this is a good point. Yet we're looking at an actual 
liability and are supposed to look at some vague possible future 
benefit. -- Andrei