"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.2293.1299467610.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > On Sunday 06 March 2011 18:08:49 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >> Yah, thing is people work on stuff they care about, not the most urgent >> stuff - surprise! :o) As such we don't have a ton of proposals for >> networking and xml, but we do have one (and I won't argue it's a bad >> one) for rehashing a module that basically worked.
I'm not sure I'd say the current std.path "basically works", but I get what you mean. > > I _was_ thinking of putting forward a new proposal which includes the unit > testing functionality that assertPred had which won't end up in an > improved > assert, Speaking of which: Now that assertPred has been rejected on the grounds of an improved assert that doesn't yet exist, what is the current status of the improved assert?
