Re: Improving assert-printing in DMD

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 10/02/2015 08:27 AM, Per Nordlöw wrote:
On Friday, 2 October 2015 at 12:15:13 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote:
I guess we only need on symbol name for `onAssertFailed` then instead
of `assertBinOp` and `assertUnOp`, right?

And two overloads

Binary case:

     onAssertFailed(string op)(e1, e2, __FILE__, ...)

Unary case:

     onAssertFailed(string op)(e, __FILE__, ...)

I presume?

Sounds good.

Because number of arguments to each overload will be fixed, right?

What about the case

assert(f(expr))
assert(symbol)

Should `op` be empty in that casesor should we use yet another overload

     onAssertFailed(e, __FILE__, ...)

for that case?

I'd say lower the same as (e !is 0) for numerics and (e !is null) for 
the others.


Andrei