On Saturday, 2 August 2014 at 07:36:34 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
...
Look, this is the point I'm trying to make. Given the English definition of assert (Just accept the definition, I'm tired: "statement of fact or belief confidently and forcefully"), I claim that it makes sense that a compiler will use your statement of fact to do something meaningful. The assert defined in this topic by Walter certainly aligns with what *I* would expect the compiler to do, given a statement of fact. Yes, whatever you said may be true or may not be true. Just like anything else, though, if you're wrong, your program will be buggy. Such is life of a programmer.
I find the concept of not doing anything meaningful with an assert to be strange. I find the idea of confusing "checking" with "asserting" to also be pretty weird (only after this topic, to be fair). Given the English definition of assert, it seems strange that I ever believed it should work the way I conceptualized it before. But oh well. That's all I really wanted to say, I'm really tired of words and throwing things around and confusing something so simple and trivial. Simple things should stay simple. Complexity hides incorrect logic.
To simplify: When I tell the compiler to do something, it does it. Thus, if I give a compiler a statement of fact, it should use that information. There should be no special case between those two. Yeah whatever, compile errors, come on man, stop missing the simple and obvious point. Stop missing the forest for the grain of dirt.
