On Thursday, 19 September 2013 at 08:29:43 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
In particular if/when we will have "contracts are
managed/compiled by caller", then that behavior is the only
behavior we will be able to do (AFAIK).
I looks like your misunderstanding based on wrong assumption
about implementation.
Not really a wrong assumption. This *has*. This has been
discussed before. Another plan is to allow contracts in
interfaces, in which case, there is no associated body:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6549
Or is there something that explicitly states it works that
way? Should I file a bug report? ER?
I don't consider that whether out refers to unmodified or
modified parameter is important issue. Current policy should be
just documented and left as it is (unless you provide
significant reasons that current implementation is flawed).
It's flawed because the behavior of the contract will depend on
what the body of the function does to copies of data that should
be scoped only to that body.
An "out" contract should only verify that the value returned is
correct "in regards" to the "input arguments".
This means the implementation details of the function's body are
leaking into the out block. That just isn't right.
