On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 01:39:25 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On 8/6/2014 8:18 AM, David Bregman wrote:
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.
I disagree. I don't think the fact that some people already
had the new
definition in mind before is really all that relevant. That's
in the
past. This is all about the pros and cons of changing it now
and for the
future.
You keep going on the premise that your definition is the
intended definition. I completely disagree. My understanding of
assert has always been as Walter has described it. To me,
*that* is the existing definition and yours is completely new.
Nothing is being changed. He's just talking about starting to
take advantage of it as he has always intended to.
No, intention is orthogonal to this. Again, this is all about the
pros and cons of changing the *actual* semantics of assert.
