That's in the past. This is all about the pros and cons of changing it now and for the future.
OK, but my point was you were using a different definition of undefined behavior. We can't communicate if we aren't using the same meanings of words.
The 'regular' definition of assert is used in C, C++ and for the last >10years (afaik), in D. If you want to change it you need a good justification. I'm not saying such justification necessarily exist doesn't either, maybe it does but I have not seen it.
The 'regular' definition of assert that you claim is what I see as
the redefinition - it is a definition based on the particular
implementation of assert in other languages, not on the conceptual idea of
assert as I understand it (and as it appears to be intended in D).
I disagree. I don't think the fact that some people already had the new definition in mind before is really all that relevant.This appears to be the root of the argument, and has been circled
repeatedly... it's not my intent to restart another round of discussion on
that well traveled ground, I just wanted to state my support for the
definition as I understand it.