On Saturday, 30 January 2016 at 21:22:02 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
You probably know about this, but some of the source code formatting is a little off (and allowing javascript / cross-site requests doesn't help).

Right, the contract formatter is something I started a while ago but not finished yet.

And actually, a lot of the contracts are ugly anyway, even if nicely formatted (that is, the code is more implementation-focused than presentable as documentation), so I'm not sure trying to print them is actually a good idea.

This is the original source of your picture:

    static if (hasLength!Range)
        // TODO: core.checkedint supports mixed signedness yet?
        import core.checkedint : adds, addu;
        import std.conv : ConvException, to;

        alias LengthType = typeof(range.length);
        bool overflow;
        static if(isSigned!Enumerator && isSigned!LengthType)
            auto result = adds(start, range.length, overflow);
        else static if(isSigned!Enumerator)
            Largest!(Enumerator, Signed!LengthType) signedLength;
try signedLength = to!(typeof(signedLength))(range.length);
                overflow = true;

            auto result = adds(start, signedLength, overflow);
            static if(isSigned!LengthType)
                assert(range.length >= 0);
            auto result = addu(start, range.length, overflow);

        assert(!overflow && result <= Enumerator.max);

It is certainly nicer when correctly formatted... but still, what is that actually saying?

The initial part is more readable than the original source code, but the in contract is a bit messy.

aye, that's where I spent all the time.

Even with that, this is a lot easier and more approachable than the dlang.org docs. Thanks!


Reply via email to