Yeah, after ....
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com> wrote:
> yes. this may work.
> probably better to put it after extends and implements.
>
> Dmitry.
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Joe Watkins <pthre...@pthreads.org> wrote:
>
>> Could this be described as a requirement of the class ?
>>
>> class Mine
>> require(invariant-expr)
>> extends Something
>> implements Someface {
>>
>> public function method($param) : return
>> require(input-expr),
>> return(output-expr) {
>>
>> }
>> }
>>
>> To avoid invariant keyword maybe.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Joe
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com> wrote:
>>
>>> invariant is for classes only. It should be called before and/or after
>>> each method to check object consistency.
>>>
>>> syntax with expressions may work if we put constraints before the
>>> function body .
>>>
>>> function foo($a int): int
>>> require(expr1)
>>> require(expr2, msg)
>>> return(expr3)
>>> {
>>> }
>>>
>>> Yasuo, I would suggest to describe both syntax options.
>>>
>>> Thanks. Dmitry.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Joe Watkins <pthre...@pthreads.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Morning Yasuo,
>>>>
>>>> Can you explain what invariant is for ?
>>>>
>>>> I prefer a list of contracts with a single expression, over blocks
>>>> of expressions in one contract.
>>>> An IDE can just as easy generate a block of code or set of
>>>> contracts, so it's really just a matter of how complex it makes the
>>>> implementation if you allow any block of code in the contract. I think it
>>>> does make it unnecessarily complicated to implement, I can be wrong.
>>>>
>>>> If there is going to be two rfc's, I will vote no on the annotations
>>>> based one, I'd rather no time was wasted on even writing it; Before you
>>>> convince anyone that DBC is a good idea you have to convince them
>>>> annotations is a good idea, many have tried and failed.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohg...@ohgaki.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Dmitry and Joe,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Usage of "return" is a good idea.
>>>>>> The more heads the better result :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Less additional reserved word :)
>>>>> So I'll use "require" and "return" for D like RFC.
>>>>> We haven't talk much about invariants. I'll write my idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> Current RFC is large enough already, I'll prepare new one.
>>>>> We may decide what to do with 2 RFCs.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have choices for with block or without block. I prefer with block
>>>>> version, since
>>>>> assert expression could be messy. With block, IDE may do it's jobs.
>>>>> i.e. Hide blocks.
>>>>>
>>>>> ==============================================
>>>>> Function/Method
>>>>>
>>>>> [With block]
>>>>> function foo()
>>>>> require {
>>>>> assert(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> assert(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> assert(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> }
>>>>> return {
>>>>> assert(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> assert(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> assert(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> }
>>>>> invariant {
>>>>> assert(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> assert(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> assert(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> }
>>>>> {
>>>>> // body
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> _OR_
>>>>>
>>>>> [Without block]
>>>>> function foo() {
>>>>> require(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> require(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> require(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> invariant(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> invariant(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> invariant(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> return(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> return(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> return(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>>
>>>>> // function body
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently, following code wouldn't work (PHP 7.0.0-dev)
>>>>> ----------
>>>>> assert(function() {return FALSE;}, 'AAAAA');
>>>>> ----------
>>>>>
>>>>> For block version, which do you prefer, allow any PHP syntax or assert
>>>>> only?
>>>>> People may use anonymous function to do fancy jobs anyway if it's
>>>>> supported.
>>>>>
>>>>> No block version only accepts EXPR obviously, but anonymous function
>>>>> may
>>>>> be used with this as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ==============================================
>>>>> Class invariants
>>>>>
>>>>> [With block]
>>>>> class Foo {
>>>>> __invariants() {
>>>>> assert(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> assert(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> assert(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> _OR_
>>>>>
>>>>> [Without block]
>>>>> class Foo {
>>>>> __construct() {
>>>>> invariant(assert-expr, 'msg'); // Only allow in __construct()?
>>>>> Allowing invariant.
>>>>> invariant(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> invariant(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ==============================================
>>>>> Global invariant
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure if we should have
>>>>>
>>>>> function __invariants() {
>>>>> assert(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> assert(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> assert(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> _OR_
>>>>>
>>>>> invariant {
>>>>> assert(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> assert(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> assert(assert-expr, 'msg');
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> to assert global vars, whole app state, etc. It may be useful for unit
>>>>> tests as well as app development.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll start working after I get comment from you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Yasuo Ohgaki
>>>>> yohg...@ohgaki.net
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
