On 2/25/12 7:19 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 02/24/2012 08:14 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/24/12 1:13 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
In my mind, contract code belongs in the function signature, because
they document how the function expects to be called, and what it
guarantees in return. It doesn't seem to make sense to me that contracts
would be hidden from the user of the library. Sorta defeats the purpose,
since how is the user supposed to know what the function expects? Rely
on documentation, perhaps, but docs aren't as reliable as actual
contract code.
Yah, and that's why we managed, with great implementation effort, to
allow contract checks in interfaces. The concept has still to take off
though.
Andrei
'In' contracts are hardly usable at all at the moment, because they are
not inherited by default.
I thought that was fixed. Is there a bug report on it? Thanks!
Andrei
