RFC: Change what assert does on error

[Dukc]

On Sunday, 29 June 2025 at 18:04:51 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew 
Cattermole wrote:
> Should an assert fail, the most desirable behaviour for it to 
> have is to print a backtrace if possible and then immediately 
> kill the process.

No, this breaks code a bit too hard as written by many.

I think that ideally, when you wait for or poll a message from a 
thread (or fiber) that has exited with an unrecoverable error, 
that error would get rethrown from the waiting point. That way, 
unless the error is handled every thread would eventually get 
killed.

Now this wouldn't exit the failed program very quickly, but at 
least it would exit it and preserve the stack trace and 
possibility to catch the error.