On Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 22:25:59 UTC, Jeremy Powers via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
You're using a nonstandard definition of undefined behavior.
Undefined
behavior has a precise meaning, that's why Timon linked the
wiki article
for you.
The regular definition of assert does not involve any
undefined behavior,
only the newly proposed one.
But the 'newly proposed one' is the definition that I have been
using all
along.
OK, but my point was you were using a different definition of
undefined behavior. We can't communicate if we aren't using the
same meanings of words.
The 'regular' definition of assert that you claim is what I see
as
the redefinition - it is a definition based on the particular
implementation of assert in other languages, not on the
conceptual idea of
assert as I understand it (and as it appears to be intended in
D).
The 'regular' definition of assert is used in C, C++ and for the
last >10years (afaik), in D. If you want to change it you need a
good justification. I'm not saying such justification necessarily
exist doesn't either, maybe it does but I have not seen it.
This appears to be the root of the argument, and has been
circled
repeatedly... it's not my intent to restart another round of
discussion on
that well traveled ground, I just wanted to state my support
for the
definition as I understand it.
I disagree. I don't think the fact that some people already had
the new definition in mind before is really all that relevant.
That's in the past. This is all about the pros and cons of
changing it now and for the future.
