On Friday, 23 June 2017 at 13:26:53 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
On Friday, 23 June 2017 at 13:00:30 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
The out contract looks pretty good actually. The in contract,
not as good. That looks like a comma expression. I'd rather
see this be:
in(x > 0)
in(y > 0)
or
in(x > 0 && y > 0)
In this case, we have something I think I would support.
-Steve
I agree.
Same here: Kudos (!) to Solomon for the out resembling foreach,
but I don't support comma separation within in contracts, as it's
inconsistent when compared to `&&` and `||`.
Adjusted earlier example:
---
int myFunc(Args...)(Args args)
if (Args.length > 2)
in (args[0] != 0, "Yikes!")
in (args[1] > 1)
out (result; result > 0, "Oops...")
out (; globalStateStillValid) { ... }
---
Looks nice and clear to me.
OT: Anyone interested in a DIP for more template constraint
unfulfilled information in a consistent way to contracts (?) :
---
int myFunc(Args...)(Args args)
if (Args.length > 0, "Starving!")
if (Args.length > 1, "Still hungry!")
if (Args.length > 2, "Just a little bit more!")
in (args[0] != 0, "Yikes!")
in (args[1] > 1, "Why you do this?")
out (result; result > 0, "Oops...") { ... }
---
