Tnx for replaying, Paul I'm cheering for API as a bonus :-) Comparing to assert statements, I found it a bit more expressive for DBC context. But it can be considered just a stylistic issue.
My biggest complaint about "assert" statements is the lack of complete support for them in Jacoco code coverage. To my experience, it is impossible to write "assert" statement with 100% branch coverage. And this is very unfortunate when looking in a coverage report for a bigger project since false warnings from "assert" statements hide parts in code that really need more attention. When I was scratching my head how to deal with that code coverage problem, I remembered almost forgotten DBC approach. I implemented a few Groovy macro methods to cover what is most important to me (namely, "require" precondition checking). Now I have simple DBC precondition checking and correct coverage reports, plus some IDEA GDSL scripts to add IDE auto code completion. If you are interested in the implementation, please take a look at https://github.com/croz-ltd/klokwrk-project and its modules "klokwrk-lang-groovy-contracts-simple" and "klokwrk-lang-groovy-contracts-match". Suggestions are very welcome, of course :-) When adding all these small things up, I believe it is an improvement over using "assert" statements. At least for my purposes. When I finally saw the Groovy 4 road map, I was excited about DBC support and was hoping that DBC API can be taken under consideration as well :-) I hope that I explained above well enough why that is. Tnx
