RFC: Change what assert does on error

[Walter Bright]

Timon's method is reasonable as his particular situation requires it, and is an 
example of how flexible D's response to failures can be customized.

It's not reasonable if the software is controlling the radiation dosage on a 
Therac-25, or is empowered to trade your stocks, or is flying a 747.

Executing code after the program crashes is always a risk, and the more code 
that is executed, the more risk. If your software is powering the remote for a 
TV, there aren't any consequences for failure.