On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 07:29:43PM +1000, Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d wrote: > "Walter Bright" wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > >Asserts in unittests are not the same as asserts elsewhere. I wasn't > >a big fan of this, but I was probably the only one :-) > > This has the fun side-effect that asserts in unittest helper functions > are fatal, while ones in the unittest body are not! > > And we've also got asserts in pre-conditions, which are recoverable by > definition.
Huh, what? I thought asserts in pre-conditions are non-recoverable, because they imply that user code has broken the contract governing the use of that function. T -- Answer: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion. Question: Why is top posting bad?
