On 24.11.2016 12:35, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 23.11.2016 um 21:32 schrieb Timon Gehr:
On 23.11.2016 11:15, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
scope (exit) { assert(n > 0); }
{
n += 1;
}
This is not a counterexample, because the block statement following the
scope statement is not part of the scope statement. I.e. if anything, it
is bad that this looks similar, because it is grammatically different.
The function body isn't part of the "in"/"out" contract either. I don't
see the point here.
...
There can be no free-standing contract, it's part of the function signature.
(Also, in my code there are usually exactly zero block statements nested
directly in block statements.)
The whole topic in general so far seems to be mainly hinged around
personal taste (me included). Not sure if we'll be able to reach consent
for anything but option 1.
That's understood (this is about syntax).
BTW, a point against option 2 is: "body" is actually one of the few
keywords that D has that have adequate names. It's the body that
follows, not the function.
