On Wednesday, 8 October 2014 at 03:20:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Can we at least agree that Dicebot's request for having the
behaviour of
inadvisable constructs defined such that an implementation
cannot randomly
change behaviour and then have the developers close down the
corresponding
bugzilla issue because it was the user's fault anyway is not
unreasonable by
definition because the system will not reach a perfect state
anyway, and then
retire this discussion?
I've been working with Dicebot behind the scenes to help
resolve the particular issues with the code he's responsible
for.
As for D, D cannot offer any guarantees about behavior after a
program crash. Nor can any other language.
Just wanted to point out that resulting solution (== manually
switching many of contracts to exceptions from asserts) to me is
an unhappy workaround to deal with overly opinionated language
and not actually a solution. I still consider this a problem.
