It's nothing wrong here. It's just a concept that cares about constraints definition more.
So, DbC with asserts spread among the code is like OOP without classes. Thanks. Dmitry. On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi! > > > Following our conversation, I tried to imagine how DbC should look like > in > > PHP from user perspective. Finally, I was influenced by the semantic > > proposed in D, and syntax proposed for Java. So, these are my initial > > thoughts: > > > > For php it may look like the following: > > > > function foo() > > requre(<input-assert-expression>) > > ensure(<output-assert-expression>) > > { > > ... > > } > > Why not do it simpler? > > function foo() { > // require > assert(<input-assert-expression>); > ... > // ensure > assert(<output-assert-expression>); > } > > I'm oversimplifying a bit, but in general, why we need more places to > have code in the function than the actual code of the function? It would > be harder to parse, to read, to maintain, to debug, to profile, etc. and > I'm not sure what exactly it provides that can't be done by plain > regular code inside the function. > > If we're concerned about the costs of assert, we could make special > provision in the compiler for zero-cost asserts. It doesn't require > moving code out of the function. > -- > Stas Malyshev > smalys...@gmail.com >