On Friday, 23 June 2017 at 21:14:47 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
On Friday, 23 June 2017 at 20:49:35 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
...
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. With the proposal
Timon implemented we have the following:
- the newer, decoupled contract syntax that separates contract
specification and implementation from each other; Timon's
implementation uses asserts as the internal contract
implementation AFAIK
Not exactly. It actually _couples_ `in` expressions with assert
expressions. In essence it just lowers
int fun(int a)
in(a)
{
}
...to:
int fun(int a)
in { assert(a); }
{
}
This is a sensible default. In the future, some logic could be
added to provide a hook to a different implementation of the
`in` function, so that it would lower instead to:
int fun(int a)
in { __userDefinedInContract(a); }
{
}
But I suspect the vast majority will stick with the default.
I think my proposal to add another use of semicolon in
parentheses, like `foreach` or `for` but not the same as either,
was needlessly complicated.
in (a)
out (result) (a)
as syntax sugar where each (a) lowers to
{assert(a);}
and in future can lower to something else, to renovate contract
implementation
That's so much easier, in every way.
