RFC: Change what assert does on error

[Adam Wilson]

On Friday, 4 July 2025 at 07:24:33 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> This whole discussion seems pointless anyway. If you want to 
> unwind the exception stack every time, use enforce(), not 
> assert(). That's what it's for.

That's not up to me as any two-bit library could use assert() 
instead of enforce(). What you're really saying is "Never use 
assert() anywhere ever, always use enforce()", which means we can 
safely deprecate and remove assert() from the language.

In User Interface Design, a key principle is always make the 
default response the sane response. If the sane response is 
enforce(), then enforce() needs to be the default. Or you make 
assert() behave like enforce(), because the sane response is 
enforce().