Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Christopher Wright <[email protected]> wrote:
No. This proposed syntax change is quite misleading. Contracts cannot access
the function's local variables, but it looks like they can. Contracts are
executed at particular times, but that syntax makes them look like they
execute wherever they are written.
I believe you can put "body" before each function body, even with no
contracts, if it makes you happier.
OK, then what about:
void foo()
in { ... }
out { ... }
{ ... }
the 'body' keyword is completely arbitrary. There is no ambiguity here.
Agreed.
Also, I almost never use contracts because of their verbosity. It's
much shorter - and functionally equivalent - to just put asserts in
the function body, some at the beginning and some in a scope(exit).
Not technically true -- contract can contain more than raw asserts.
For example, it might contain a non-trivial loop (such as a foreach which calls
a virtual opApply) which may be hard for the compiler to optimize out even if it
can deduce the body is a no-op (because it only contained assertions, most likely).
