> > You're using a nonstandard definition of undefined behavior. Undefined > behavior has a precise meaning, that's why Timon linked the wiki article > for you. > > The regular definition of assert does not involve any undefined behavior, > only the newly proposed one. >
But the 'newly proposed one' is the definition that I have been using all along. The 'regular' definition of assert that you claim is what I see as the redefinition - it is a definition based on the particular implementation of assert in other languages, not on the conceptual idea of assert as I understand it (and as it appears to be intended in D). This appears to be the root of the argument, and has been circled repeatedly... it's not my intent to restart another round of discussion on that well traveled ground, I just wanted to state my support for the definition as I understand it.