On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 at 14:09:40 UTC, Enamex wrote:
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:
R foo(Args...)(Args args) {
out(return > bar && ensured(return), "foo() fudged its
return");
Contracts inside function bodies should not be allowed imho.
I was going with the current 'Proposal' syntax in the DIP's
document. There a more recent proposal here?
The DIP is still at pre-preliminary review round 1 (since it
hasn't finished yet).
The current syntax proposal is effectively emergent through H. S.
Teoh's general proposal [1], Solomon E's out enhancement [2], and
Timon Gehr's implementation of the former two [3].
You can see in Timon's examples [4] how it looks (and contracts
are part of a function's signature).
[1]
http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.3511.1497981037.31550.digitalmar...@puremagic.com
[2]
http://forum.dlang.org/post/xtimtynqeuzmgaych...@forum.dlang.org
[3] http://forum.dlang.org/post/oijl5f$20fv$1...@digitalmars.com
[4]
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/compare/master...tgehr:contract-syntax#diff-0630cf91becfdb077688ebd1ef400c5a
