On 8/5/14, 11:28 PM, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 00:52:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/3/2014 4:51 PM, Mike Farnsworth wrote:
This all seems to have a very simple solution, to use something like:
expect()
I see code coming that looks like:
expect(x > 2); // must be true
assert(x > 2); // check that it is true
All I can think of is, shoot me now :-)
How about something like
@expected assert(x > 2); or @assumed assert(x > 2);
It wouldn't introduce a new keyword, but still introduces the
expected/assumed semantics. You should keep in mind that you
might have to make a compromise, regardless of your feelings on
the subject.
I think "assert" is good to use for optimization, and "debug assert"
would be a good choice for soft assertions. Care must be exercised with
tying new optimizations to build flags.
Also, I am going to try to say this in as respectful a way as I
can...
Please stop responding in such a dismissive way, I think it is
already pretty obvious that some are getting frustrated by these
threads. Responding in a dismissive way makes it seem like you
don't take the arguments seriously.
I have difficulty figuring how such answers can be considered
dismissive. The quoted code is considered an antipattern at least e.g.
at my workplace. (Wouldn't pass review, and disproportionate insistence
on such might curb one's career.) Even though some might not agree with
Walter's opinion, it's entirely reasonable to express dislike of that
code; I don't quite get why that would be consider dismissive. I think
we're at the point where everybody understands one another, and there
must be a way to express polite but definite disagreement. What would
that be?
Thanks,
Andrei
