On 07/15/2010 06:00 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
On Jul 15, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:I think there's a disadvantage there. FWIW changing the semantics of assert that way will translate into a disincentive to use it inside unittests ("Hmm, I better use enforce() here because assert() is just weird.")Is there a disadvantage in providing a separate routine that reports and doesn't throw? I know it's another global symbol (assuming it's in object.di), but...
Good question. expect() comes to mind. Andrei _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
