RFC: Change what assert does on error

[Bruce Carneal]

On Sunday, 6 July 2025 at 16:21:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> 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.

The optimal behavior varies with the context so the programmer 
should decide.  The default behavior should, IMO, favor safety.