On Thursday, 19 September 2013 at 07:45:44 UTC, monarch_dodra
wrote:
On Thursday, 19 September 2013 at 06:39:09 UTC, Ivan Kazmenko
wrote:
On Thursday, 19 September 2013 at 01:41:15 UTC, mrd wrote:
Why argument "value" in contract isn't equal 2 ?
Why should it be? <snip>
I actually disagree though: How the function is implemented
should have no bearing on how the output contract should be
implemented. Both should get their own copy of the args. The
implementation of a function should not have to create a local
duplicate just because it happens to know that it has an out
contract.
This is particularly relent since (in theory), an in/out
contract should appear in a function's interface, and
compiled/called by client code (though that's not the case
today).
That doesn't seem to be possible in every case. For example,
what if an argument is a class with copy constructor disabled?
I'm not claiming that the current behavior is the best one. I
just don't get a coherent picture of how it could be defined
otherwise. And the current definition seems to follow the
principle of least surprise for me.
Ivan Kazmenko.
