RFC: Change what assert does on error

[Walter Bright]

On 7/2/2025 9:35 AM, Sebastiaan Koppe wrote:
> I absolutely understand your stance. There are programs where I would blindly 
> follow your advice. It's just that there 99x as many where graceful shutdown is 
> better.

As the quote from me says, "Depending on one's tolerance for risk, it might 
favor the user with a message about what went wrong before aborting (like a 
backtrace)." That would make it up to you how graceful a shutdown is desirable. 
Even so, continuing to operate the program as if the error did not happen 
remains a mistake.

> Also, most triggered asserts I have seen were because of programmer bugs, as in, 
> they misused some library for example, not because of actual corruption or 
> violation of some basic axiom.

The behavior of assert() in D is completely customizable. But I cannot in good 
conscience recommend continuing normal operation of a program after it has crashed.