On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 10:51:39 UTC, ketmar wrote:
there, of course, *IS* The difference. besides the aesthetical
one (seeing failed condition immediately "clicks" in your head,
and generic "assertion failed" message is only frustrating),
there may be the case when source code changed since binary was
built. here, line number gives you zero information, and you
have to checkout that exact version, and go check the line. but
when failed condition dumped, most of the time it allows you to
see what is wrong even without switching to the old codebase
(yes, "most of the time" is from RL -- it is literally *most*
of the time for me, for example).
How would you solve this issue? By pure chance, we're debating
this exact same issue right now in the DIP1009 thread [1].
Solutions:
1. Make more informative asserts the compiler default. This
threatens performance, which argues against it.
2. Status quo. Make people use whatever asserts they want, e.g.
fluent asserts [2]. This would mean that H.S Teoh's proposed
syntax for DIP1009 [3] would carry less weight, and the existing
proposal would carry more. Elegance is sacrificed for the sake of
versatility.
3. Allow an additional compiler flag for more informative, but
heavier asserts, e.g. `-release=informativeAsserts`.
4. Allow a pragma in the code, e.g. `pragma(asserts,
none/regular/informative)` for what kinds of asserts are to be
used at a given moment.
5. ???
[1]
http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.3531.1498022870.31550.digitalmar...@puremagic.com
[2] http://fluentasserts.szabobogdan.com/
[3]
http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.3511.1497981037.31550.digitalmar...@puremagic.com
