On 16.05.2017 05:44, MysticZach wrote:
...
With your proposal, this syntax would already be taken for a function
with an empty implementation.
Also, does a final function with contracts, but no body, make any sense?
What's the use case?
...
di files.
Even if there were some use case for it, I can think of two solutions.
One is to keep and require the current syntax for an interface function
without a body. This is the natural way to install contracts anyway, for
a function with no body.
The other solution is to recommend the addition of an empty statement,
for an empty final function, e.g.:
// final
int fun() {
in assert(...);
{}
}
Considering what Jonathan said about how he never uses contracts because
they're so bulky, might it not be worth it to solve the interface
problem in either of the above two ways?
No. Contracts are not part of the function body, they are part of the
function signature. That's the point.
