thanks I didn't know... must've been buried in the specs somewhere...
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote: > On Monday, April 01, 2013 23:44:43 Timothee Cour wrote: >> can we officially use >> >> assert(a); >> >> instead of >> >> assert(a !is null); >> >> (likewise with if(...)) >> >> It seems to compile and work just fine, and is shorter. > > That depends on what a is. If it's an AA as in the OP, then yes, they should > be the same. The same goes for a pointers to built-in types and arrays, but > for classes and pointers to structs, assert(a) checks for null and then calls > the class' invariant rather than just checking for null. However, the > invariant does not get called for if statements. > > - Jonathan M Davis
