On 06.03.2018 10:02, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/6/2018 12:45 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Anyway, "do not use assert" is not the solution, as I have explained
many times now.
My interpretation is you want D assert to behave like C assert.
This interpretation is wrong. I, as well as other people, want a
compiler option to make the compiler ignore D asserts and contracts. Not
more, not less.
C assert
and enforce are purely creatures of the library, with semantics defined
by their library implementation, and have no effect on the core language.
...
That's a meaningless proposition. The current D -release assert behavior
can be implemented in a library (just trigger UB in the false branch).
I recommend creating your own library assert, call it 'check' for
example, and give it the semantics you wish. You can even have it expand
to nothing for release builds.
...
Well, awesome. Now I need to make everyone on the project as well as
external libraries, such as Phobos, use my 'check' function, when the
contract documentation tells them to use assert and does not even hint
at the downsides. No, thanks. I'd rather fork the compiler.
But I have explained this (and further reasons) already. I suspect you
did not read my posts. A few others have. I'll try to keep this one shorter.
Creating library asserts is why D has special support for __FILE__ and
__LINE__ like C does, and for the same reasons.
What I want is special support for sane built-in assert semantics using
a compiler flag. That does not mean that there cannot _also_ be a flag
to unleash the nasal demons upon unworthy programmers who were stupid
enough to collaborate with someone who imported an external library that
was written by somebody who had a bad day one time and left in a wrong
assertion.
Again: There is no reason why we need to force one behavior over the
other. This should be configurable.
