[phobos] enforce() vs. assert() for range primitives

[Jacob]

That would be the -defaultlib and -debuglib options if I'm not misstaken. 

On 19 aug 2010, at 01:08, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog at gmail.com> wrote:

> The ideal situation would be to use asserts in all cases where it's going to be 
> bugs in the program rather than bad user input and that they go away in release 
> mode. The problem is the fact that Phobos is compiled as an external library 
> rather than being compiled in with your code when you compile. And since there's 
> no way (at least no standard way) to have a release and debug version of the 
> Phobos libraries, with the release version being used in release mode and the 
> debug version being used in debug mode, that pretty much means that you _always_ 
> compile your code with the release version of Phobos. This makes assert 
> _useless_ for users of the library. If you want checks beyond within Phobos 
> code, you _have_ to use enforce(), and since enforce has issues with inlining 
> and it doesn't go away in release mode, it's like forcing a portion of Phobos 
> into debug mode.
> 
> _Ideally_, we would find some sort of standard way to make Phobos used in debug 
> mode when compiling in debug mode and release mode when compiling in release 
> mode. That way, asserts could be used in a lot of these cases since a lot of 
> them really shouldn't be checked in release mode. Personally, I _really_ don't 
> like the fact that the libraries aren't necessarily in the same mode as your 
> code, though I'm not sure that there's a good way to deal with that other than 
> having some standard naming scheme for debug vs release libraries which Phobos 
> uses and dmd understands so that you get a debug version when compiling your 
> code in debug mode, and you get a release version when compiling in release 
> mode. Barring that however...
> 
> You'd almost have to take it on a case by case basis. In some cases, you're 
> going to need checks and it would be bad not to have them, while in others, it 
> would just cost too much to leave them in. It's a tough call. If anything 
> though, I think that it's a prime example of needing to find a better way to deal 
> with debug vs release and libraries. If we had a standard way to have both 
> available, then dmd could use both with user code, and then we can use asserts 
> like they should be used. As it stands though, we're probably going to have to 
> use enforce() where we _need_ checks for safety and asserts otherwise. But since 
> using asserts is almost pointless.... Bleh. It's just ugly.
> 
> - Jonathan M Davis
> _______________________________________________
> phobos mailing list
> phobos at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos