Re: "Assert"? "Assume"? (was: next "big" language?? (disagree))

[claird@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Cameron Laird)]

In article <4qsbm7$r1s@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, I wondered:
			.
			.
			.
>Now I'm lost; what kind of people argue for the utility of
>Fact()?  If this congregation thinks pre-processors are
>inherently problematic (they are), then surely we can
>recognize that a Fact() is a confession that the language
>in question promotes implementations which over-specify,
>in comparison to their corresponding designs.  A different
>way to say the same thing:  if P is sufficiently important
>for Fact(P) to be of consequence, then it ought to be
>natural to declare P *in* the language.
			.
			.
			.
Now I get it.  In my own crude language, Fact() or
Assert() is an ingredient from the workshop of com-
puter language theory.  It certainly is a construct
that be defined, and has definite benefits.

From the standpoint of software engineering, though,
it's hard for me to imagine a situation where the
costs don't overweigh those benefits.

Thanks to those who wrote to elucidate Assert().

Follow-ups severely narrowed.
-- 

Cameron Laird           http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html
claird@NeoSoft.com      +1 713 623 8000 #227
                        +1 713 996 8546 FAX