On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 19:52:28 +0400, Christopher Bergqvist
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
Time for some Sunday nitpicking. While reading TDPL, one thing that stuck
out to me was the special behavior of assert(false). Consider the
following
program compiled with "-release".
void main()
{
int a = 0;
assert(a);
}
That program will run without errors. Changing the type of variable a
from
"int" to "enum" results in the program segfaulting thanks to the compiler
being able to know the value of the expression "a" at compile time and
inserting a HLT/"halt" instruction. Having the ability to change
something
subtle in a more complex expression or series of expressions without
realizing you made a compile time assert(false) which crashes your
program
feels ugly.
I would prefer it if assert() didn't have this special type of behavior,
and
that a "halt" keyword or equivalent was introduced. What do you think?
/ Chris
There is a C abort() function, and most compiler recognize that it doesn't
return.
