On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:18:21 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
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.
My counterargument to that is that it's possible that the
cognitive dissonance only occurs because of what people are used
to, rather than what is inherent to the syntax.
I've already gotten used to it just by writing this DIP.
I think it is likely that you are an outlier.
Well my impression was that Walter liked it too, although I could
have misinterpreted his comment here:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/ogvt66$1bcp$1...@digitalmars.com
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.
Improving the checking logic interface may solve at a higher
level the problem I'm trying to solve at a very low one, with
mere syntax changes, and it might be (is probably?) the best way
forward.
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.
Well, my view is that my DIP is actually a very lightweight
syntax change, and an equally lightweight improvement in contract
syntax, so it's a lost-cost, mild improvement . The cognitive
dissonance argument is the main one against it, and I really
don't know if that dissonance is based on fundamental flaws in
the way I'm thinking about it, or just the "Shock of the New"
[1]. If allowing contracts in the function body really is a
fundamentally flawed concept, then I won't keep advocating for it.
H. S. Teoh's counter-proposal is, and I think your DIP has a
much higher chance of acceptance if you go with it.
I'm not actually worried about whether the proposal is accepted
or not, as long the best ideas and arguments come forward and are
heard. I have more faith in the process than I do in any
particular proposal.
As far as Teoh's proposal, I would say that its quality is highly
correlated to the percentage of projects that find built-in
`assert` adequate to their needs, which is hard to assess
precisely - the better `assert` is, or can be made to be, the
better Teoh's proposal is, I'd say. Moritz [2] suggests solving
the problem by decoupling `in` and `out` contract syntax from the
checking logic. This seems like a good way to go too. But I'd
like to see a little more justification for it.
[1] Robert Hughes documentary, "The Shock of the New"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3ne7Udaetg
[2]
http://forum.dlang.org/post/uzzwmgqoqxuxhusjv...@forum.dlang.org
