=== on 17 Sep 2015, 15:11:11 Ann Campbell wrote:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/language/assert.html

=== on 17 Sep 2015, 15:11:27 Ann Campbell wrote:
FYI [~tamas.vajk]

=== on 18 Sep 2015, 12:19:34 Freddy Mallet wrote:
Perhaps [~ann.campbell.2], we could raise an issue as soon as a method call beginning with a verb like add, remove, set, delete, ... is done inside the assert expression ?

=== on 18 Sep 2015, 12:29:23 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~freddy.mallet] from an implementation standpoint, I think that would be a good idea. From a rule description standpoint, I hesitate to make that change. I believe this will be one of those rules that continually expands in scope. As the scope grows, I thing the best way to describe that scope will emerge.

=== on 18 Sep 2015, 12:37:38 Nicolas Peru wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] [~freddy.mallet] IMO the rule should raise an issue whatever is after an assert. If the program is thought to not be working with special value then it might be a good idea to have something failing properly (guava preconditions, throwing an exception... ) instead of relying on an invariant that might not be triggered at runtime.

=== on 18 Sep 2015, 15:10:10 Ann Campbell wrote:
updated [~nicolas.peru]

