Hi Stas, I agree, it may look weird at first, but if you familiar with concept it looks more or less natural. It's implemented in D, Effiel, it was a proposal for Java, etc
Anyway, we will have at least 3 competing proposals. 1) contracts in doc-commetns https://wiki.php.net/rfc/dbc /** * @requires ($a >= 0) */ function foo($a) { } 2) contracts as part of the language https://wiki.php.net/rfc/dbc2 function foo($a) require($a >= 0) { } 3) contracts in annotations <<requires($a >= 0)>> function foo($a) { } The fact that we are working on (2) now, doesn't mean we will select it as a final solution. (3) is an interesting option as well. Thanks. Dmitry. On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi! > > > Please steer clear of using the assert API, and in so doing avoid BC > > concerns with the current assert API. > > The operator can be called something other than "assert", I'm sure the > thesaurus has a lot of possibilities. > > > Please avoid adding a magic method and use the suggested syntax for > > invariant. > > > > class Some { > > require(invariant-expr); > > I think reusing syntax for existing operator in completely unrelated > context is a big mistake. Having code outside of functions is probably > not the best idea too. > > -- > Stas Malyshev > smalys...@gmail.com >
