On Saturday, 2 August 2014 at 05:35:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/1/2014 7:13 PM, David Bregman wrote:
OK, I think I have an idea how to be more convincing (I wish
I'd thought of this
earlier):
is this
http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cassert/assert/
the same as this?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/1b3fsfxw.aspx
can you see the difference now?
What I see is Microsoft attempting to bring D's assert
semantics into C++. :-)
OK, I'm done. It's clear now that you're just being
intellectually dishonest in order to "win" what amounts to a
trivial argument. So much for professionalism.
As I've mentioned before, there is inexorable pressure for this
to happen, and it will happen.
What will happen is you will find out the hard way whether code
breakage, undefined behavior and security holes are a worthy
tradeoff for some trivial performance gains which likely can't
even be measured except in toy benchmarks.
