On Friday, 23 June 2017 at 19:38:11 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
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.
Because coupling the new contract syntax and assert syntax in the
grammar means that changing assert syntax will affect the new
contract syntax (when it shouldn't, as they are semantically
decoupled).
