On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 14:49:09 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 13:24:24 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
So weird how this discussion is happening in parallel with
this other discussion :-) :
http://forum.dlang.org/post/rkdpuuggltowhqmcm...@forum.dlang.org
It is, though as I have pointer out over there, I would really
like to decouple assert semantics from the new contract
semantics to achieve the maximum elegance we can within the
design limits of the language.
Well I'd be just as happy expanding the design limits of the
language, i.e. `assert`, if that were a better option. The issue
you raise is just how different are `in` and `out` contracts from
regular `assert` contracts. They _are_ all listed in the same
section of the documentation [1], for whatever that's worth.
The practical question is whether one can assume that the same
semantics used for `assert`, whatever they may be, will in all
cases be desirable for `in` and `out` too. The flexibility of
decoupling them is one solution, if they are clearly sufficiently
different. But another option is simply to upgrade `assert` to
make sure it offers what everyone wants. I don't know what to
suggest, because I don't if `assert` can be made good enough to
warrant direct inclusion into the grammar. If it could, then all
contracts, including plain `assert` statements, would benefit
from them.
[1] https://dlang.org/spec/contracts.html
