Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:51:49 +0400, Christopher Wright
<dhase...@gmail.com> wrote:
bearophile wrote:
But isn't a syntax like the following better? To me it looks more
logic, because in{} and out(){} are part of the function, and there's
no need of a special syntax for the body (and the 'body' keyword):
long squareRoot(long x) {
in {
assert(x >= 0);
}
out (result) {
assert((result * result) <= x && (result+1) * (result+1) >= x);
}
return cast(long)std.math.sqrt(cast(real)x);
}
No. This proposed syntax change is quite misleading. Contracts cannot
access the function's local variables, but it looks like they can.
Contracts are executed at particular times, but that syntax makes them
look like they execute wherever they are written.
I believe you can put "body" before each function body, even with no
contracts, if it makes you happier.
Bye,
bearophile
Does scope(exit) also make you feel that it is executed immediately?
Well, take this example:
void foo(int i)
{
if (i < 0) return;
scope (exit) logExit;
}
The position has meaning here.
Then take this example:
void foo(int i)
{
if (i < 0) return;
in { assert (i != -1; }
}
This is confusing.
Good style dictates that your contracts should be separated from the
body of your function, though.
The bigger issue is the apparent nesting of scopes.
