On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 16:43:04 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 2/4/15 4:37 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: >> On Thursday, 5 February 2015 at 00:35:50 UTC, bearophile wrote: >>> Contracts can be read by tools, and they are part of the function >>> signature. Contracts should be encouraged and increased, not >>> discouraged. >> >> >> I agree. Moreover, if the assert fails in the contract, in theory, we >> can point the error at the user's code. An assert inside the function >> is the function's responsibility. An assert in an in contract is the >> caller's responsibility. They're semantically different (even if dmd >> treats them the same way) > > Yah I concede this is a good point. Yet we're looking at an actual > liability and are supposed to look at some vague possible future > benefit. -- Andrei
wait, do you mean that there was paradigm shift and we will no more keep shit in the language due to non-existent Jack The Random Reddit User told that he used that shit once? does that mean that typle syntax PR will be accepted, 'cause blocking it is a look at some vague possible future benefit?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature