"Timon Gehr" wrote in message news:lrb7qp$3q5$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Yes, this is a much more useful discussion to have than what other > people have definined assert to do. My impression has been: This is the discussion Ola wanted to have in the first place.
Yes, I'm sure it was.
He defined all the terminology he was using, and the distinction was relevant, because it actually captured the 'consequences wrt safety and correctness'.
He provided a different definition of assert. This certainly helped to show where he was arguing from, but...
Then his terminology was picked up as a convenient vector for 'attack' and his point was ignored.
... the fact that D's assert does not match another definition of assert, despite using the same name, is not an argument against the definition of D's assert.
The fact that it's unsafe is not contested. The point is the optimization is reasonable within D's rules wrt assert and -release.
