== Quote from Nick Sabalausky ([email protected])'s article
> "bearophile" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >I like contract programming, it helps me avoid bugs. This is an example
> >from the docs:
> >
> > long squareRoot(long x)
> > in {
> > assert(x >= 0);
> > }
> >
> > out (result) {
> > assert((result * result) <= x && (result+1) * (result+1) >= x);
> > }
> >
> > body {
> > return cast(long)std.math.sqrt(cast(real)x);
> > }
> >
> >
> > But isn't a syntax like the following better? To me it looks more logic,
> > because in{} and out(){} are part of the function, and there's no need of
> > a special syntax for the body (and the 'body' keyword):
> >
> > long squareRoot(long x) {
> > in {
> > assert(x >= 0);
> > }
> >
> > out (result) {
> > assert((result * result) <= x && (result+1) * (result+1) >= x);
> > }
> >
> > return cast(long)std.math.sqrt(cast(real)x);
> > }
> >
> > Bye,
> > bearophile
> This is one of those things that has always kinda bugged me about the
> language, but I never really considered a big enough deal to bring up. But
> now that it has been brought up: Yes, I agree completely.
while(oldContractSyntaxSucks) { // Currently evaluates to true.
vote++;
}
