On Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 20:37:00 UTC, Fyodor Ustinov
wrote:
assert(false) AKA assert(0) - is a part of this language that I
think it is absolute evil.
WBR,
Fyodor.
I would say it's a minor evil, that create problems by needing an
explanation.
At this point it has been discusse
On Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 20:46:14 UTC, cym13 wrote:
I don't quite get why you'd like to use -release if you are
paranoid enough to be afraid of assert(0)'s little difference
in behaviour. Could you give a realistic use case? At the very
least seeing why it is important to you can only b
On Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 13:09:09 UTC, Fyodor Ustinov
wrote:
Hi!
Is it possible when using the "-release" indicate that this one
in/out/invariant/assert should not to be disabled?
WBR,
Fyodor.
I don't quite get why you'd like to use -release if you are
paranoid enough to be afra
On Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 15:44:26 UTC, ponce wrote:
Since assert(false) is special (cf.
http://p0nce.github.io/d-idioms/#assert%28false%29-is-special)
you can use the following construct to have always-on
assert(false) AKA assert(0) - is a part of this language that I
think it is abso
On Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 13:09:09 UTC, Fyodor Ustinov
wrote:
Hi!
Is it possible when using the "-release" indicate that this one
in/out/invariant/assert should not to be disabled?
WBR,
Fyodor.
Since assert(false) is special (cf.
http://p0nce.github.io/d-idioms/#assert%28false%29
I wouldn't recommend release mode to paranoids. I personally use
`debug invariant` and `debug assert` for purely debugging code.
Hi!
Is it possible when using the "-release" indicate that this one
in/out/invariant/assert should not to be disabled?
WBR,
Fyodor.
