On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 at 15:18:31 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
What's wrong with assert(0) that you need to have a wrapper function for it?

-Steve

Nothing wrong exactly. I just wanted some descriptive terms to use in some places. Like "unreachable()" or "unimplemented()".

To be clear (and correct my original post now that I see it may have alluded to this), I want to say a function always 'throws', not necessarily asserts.

Reply via email to