Am 04.08.2014 02:30, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
On 8/3/14, 4:01 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 08/04/2014 12:15 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I suspect it is one of those ideas of Walter's that has consequences
that reach further than anyone foresees..... but that's OK, because it
is fundamentally the correct course of action, it's implications
foreseen and unforeseen will be correct.
Agreed.
No, please hold on. Walter is not a supernatural being.
There's something to be said about vision and perspective.
Walter has always meant assert the way he discusses it today.
This argument has no merit. Please stop bringing it up.
Actually it does offer value: for a large fragment of the discussion,
Walter has been confused that people have a very different understanding
of assert than his.
Yes, this kinda helps understanding Walters point.
But as his point has only been communicated to *you*, not D users in
general, you (and Walter) could be more understanding towards them being
surprised and confused by this change of asserts()'s semantics.
Instead you insist that your interpretation of what assert() should
*mean* is the ultimate truth, even though assert() doesn't *behave* like
that way in current D or any popular programming language I know of.
BTW, TCPL ("KnR") (Second Edition) defines assert as:
"The assert macro is used to add diagnostics to programs:
void assert(int expression)
If expression is zero when assert(expression) is executed, the assert
macro will print on stderr a message, (...)
It then calls abort to terminate execution. (...)
If NDEBUG is defined at the time <assert.h> is included, the assert
macro is ignored."
Of course KnR is not the ultimate truth, but it shows that there have
been definitions (by clever people!) of assert() that contradict yours
for a long time.
Cheers,
Daniel
