RFC: Change what assert does on error

[Adam Wilson]

On Thursday, 3 July 2025 at 08:25:42 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew 
Cattermole wrote:
> A couple of us have gone and asked both Gemini and Grok what 
> they think of this: "Are there any currently known malware or 
> attacks that use stack unwinding as an attack vector?"
>
> Gemini unsurprisingly gave the best answer.
>
> It is based upon the paper "Let Me Unwind That For You: 
> Exceptions to
> Backward-Edge Protection": 
> https://www.ndss-symposium.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ndss2023_s295_paper.pdf
>

I want to state for the record, that what Rikki is saying here is 
that because Walter's proffered example attack would work on 
*any* stack unwinding mechanism, then the correct solution to 
Walter's proposed attack is to remove *ALL* stack unwinding from 
the language.

Which I will assert is a terminally bad idea.

Therefore, since there is no functional difference in threats 
between Errors and Exceptions, then Error should offer the same 
unwinding facilities as well.