On 21.06.2017 02:51, MysticZach wrote:
I think people could get used to the cognitive dissonance.
That's really not what D is about.
I've already gotten used to it just by writing this DIP.
I think it is likely that you are an outlier.
If such an alternative checking system is utilized,
If so, there should be a way to hook into the checking logic. This has
nothing at all to do with contract syntax. asserts and contracts are
coupled already, as in-contracts form a disjunction on override by
catching AssertErrors.
the syntax for writing contracts should be as easy
for them as for those using `assert`.
Maybe, but your DIP does not pull its own weight as long as the latter
syntax is not a notable improvement over what we have now. H. S. Teoh's
counter-proposal is, and I think your DIP has a much higher chance of
acceptance if you go with it.
