RFC: Change what assert does on error

[Dukc]

On Monday, 7 July 2025 at 21:44:49 UTC, Dukc wrote:
> I understand this is problematic, because in practice pretty 
> much all code often is guarded by a top-level pokemon catcher, 
> meaning destructor-relying memory safety isn't going to fly 
> anywhere. I guess we should just learn to not do that

Meant that should learn not to rely on destructors (or similar 
finalisers) for memory safety.

Not that should learn out of Pokemon catching at or near the main 
function.