On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 at 12:34:59 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 at 12:17:36 UTC, Enamex wrote:
`out(return > 0, "message")`?

Yes, see [1]

It has the already used `typeof(return)` going for it, though.

A big point against it IMO would be its moving further from `return`'s signal that a function scope is exited at that line (instead it could be a variable assignment which is meh (usage in a contract check is OK
since we're already outside the function)).

`out(someCond($), "message")`?

Overloading symbols with context dependent meaning is one more step into obfuscation.

True.

So using either `out` or `return` or `$` or whatever to always refer to the return value of the function. Just something that's already relevant and used instead of `__result`.

Well, `__result` is already implemented and usable, so I would argue it is thus relevant.

It's not used in the wild yet though :T

R foo(Args...)(Args args) {
out(return > bar && ensured(return), "foo() fudged its return");

Contracts inside function bodies should not be allowed imho.

[1] http://forum.dlang.org/post/oihbot$134s$1...@digitalmars.com

I was going with the current 'Proposal' syntax in the DIP's document. There
a more recent proposal here?

Reply via email to