On 2/2/23 10:29, jmh530 wrote:
> On Thursday, 2 February 2023 at 17:22:46 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>   https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17378
>>
>>
>
> Looks like your bug report is for assert and static assert, but the PR
> only handles static assert.

I've noticed that as well.

> You might want to file a separate one for assert.

I am a little hesitant after long philosophical (to me) discussions on a tangential topic. That forum discussion is linked from this bug:

  https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17226

The forum discussion:

  https://forum.dlang.org/thread/qwixdanceeupdefyqwnr@forum.dlang.org

I still agree with myself :) in that discussion here:

  https://forum.dlang.org/post/tlqcjq$usk$1@digitalmars.com

And I think this code is how 17226 should be fixed as:

  https://forum.dlang.org/post/tldrrs$qn$1@digitalmars.com

Ali

On Thursday, 2 February 2023 at 17:22:46 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> On 2/2/23 04:30, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>
> > Glad to announce D 2.102.0, ♥ to the 40 contributors.
>
> ... Two issues that I had some interest in are fixed. Yay!

Ali rabboni, I think the other issue(#17226) is more important, very much!
> "Ali hocam, bence diğer konu daha önemli, hem de çok!"

Because it can wait in line for the mighty David, who has more pressing issues.
> "Çünkü daha acil sorunları olan çok güçlü D için sırada bekleyebilir."

Moreover, other programming languages ​​have the same problem and non-native speakers come up with their own solutions.
> "Üstelik diğer programlama dillerinde de aynı sorun var ve ana dili İngilizce olmayanlar kendi çözümlerini buluyor."

In summary this is not D's primary problem.
> "Özetle bu D'nin öncelikli sorun değildir."

By the way, thank you very much for the update. This was the first update I followed from start to finish.
> "Bu arada, güncelleme için çok teşekkür ederim.  Bu, başından sonuna kadar takip ettiğim ilk güncellemeydi."

SDB@79

On Thursday, 2 February 2023 at 22:46:51 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:

> https://forum.dlang.org/thread/qwixdanceeupdefyqwnr@forum.dlang.org
>
> I still agree with myself :) in that discussion here:
>
>   https://forum.dlang.org/post/tlqcjq$usk$1@digitalmars.com
>

BTW, check out another case of D violating the "if in an invalid state, die" precept. The following code not only runs the upstream destructor (which depends on successful completion of the downstream one), but does that in an infinite loop:

struct TransactionFactory
{
    Transaction spawnTransaction()
    {
        return Transaction(0);
    }

    // depends on all Transactions having been destroyed
    ~this()
    {
        assert(Transaction.count == 0);
    }
}

struct Transaction
{
    static int count;

    // the usual "fake nullary constructor" fiddlesticks
    this() @disable;
    this(int dummy)
    {
        count++;
    }

    ~this()
    {
        assert(false); // a failure that leaves the system in an invalid state
        count--;
    }
}

void main()
{
    TransactionFactory tf;
    Transaction t = tf.spawnTransaction;
}

On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 08:33:26 UTC, Max Samukha wrote:
>
> BTW, check out another case of D violating the "if in an invalid state, die" precept. The following code not only runs the upstream destructor (which depends on successful completion of the downstream one), but does that in an infinite loop:
>
> [...]

Yep, it's a regression: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23164