On Friday, 23 June 2017 at 18:42:55 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 6/23/17 2:24 PM, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
I'm all for this syntax, just one spec/implementation question:
If the new contract syntax (formally) shares grammar rules
with assert, won't that cause more work for people who want to
update the assert syntax later (since they will have to take
contracts into account)?
No. Asserts are the meat of in/out contracts, these are
actually asserts. Anything you do to the assert grammar should
be done here as well.
I agree. I can understand wanting to pass in/out violations to a
different handler behind the scenes. But I don't see why that
should affect the grammar.
