> He meant from being false subsequently in the program.
But, you see, the assertion is no less false just because the process was aborted. The fact remains that there exists a reachable state for which the assert fails. So apparently what I meant is no more obvious to you than it was for JonnieCache.
>But, you see, the assertion is no less false just because the process was aborted. The fact remains that there exists a reachable state for which the assert fails
Yes, Captain Obvious, and that reachable state is exactly what every programmer who uses an assert() statement expects when he writes it.
If there wasn't the potential for such a state, assert statements would do nothing ever in the first place -- so it would be kinda silly to even have them in.
He meant from being false subsequently in the program.
I see we were joined by Technically Correct Man too.
http://9gag.com/gag/a5PmrLq/technically-correct-man-the-man-...