On 10/02/2015 01:33 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 10/01/2015 06:41 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 09/30/2015 03:10 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I encourage making assert smarter seeing (a) it's already used
everywhere so the benefits will come for free and (b) it's a built-in.
-- Andrei
About (b): I'm surprised to see that you seem to have so fundamentally
changed your attitude towards magical semantics for built-ins.
I haven't - I still think making "assert" a built-in and ascribing a
keyword to it was a minor mistake. But then that sail has shipped, so
let's make the best use of the situation. -- Andrei
Ok, but if assert gets special error printing capabilities that are not
available at the same level of convenience to e.g. enforce, then this is
a roughly analogous situation to having e.g. B[] : const(A)[] for B : A,
which cannot currently be simulated in the library in a satisfactory
way. Those situations usually add friction. They tend to result in
frustration and often culminate in proposals for new, often ad-hoc
language features. IMHO, there ought to be a better way, but I don't
have a very strong opinion about this particular case.
