On 2009-10-20 11:44:00 -0400, "Steven Schveighoffer"
<schvei...@yahoo.com> said:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:36:14 -0400, Michel Fortin
<michel.for...@michelf.com> wrote:
On 2009-10-20 08:16:01 -0400, "Steven Schveighoffer"
<schvei...@yahoo.com> said:
Incidentally, shouldn't all access to the object in the in contract be
const by default anyways?
Hum, access to everything (including global variables, arguments), not
just the object, should be const in a contract. That might be harder to
implement though.
Yeah, you are probably right. Of course, a const function can still
alter global state, but if you strictly disallowed altering global
state, we are left with only pure functions (and I think that's a
little harsh).
Not exactly. Pure functions can't even read global state (so their
result can't depend on anything but their arguments), but it makes
perfect sense to read global state in a contract. What you really need
is to have a const view of the global state. And this could apply to
all asserts too.
--
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
