Michel Fortin wrote:
<snip>
I believe the syntax should make the contracts part of the function
signature, not part of the function body, because contracts are about
expressing the function's interface. So I disagree with your proposed
syntax which puts the contracts as part of the body.
<snip>
Finally, a counter-argument with which I agree. Moreover, having in/out
contracts as part of the function body suggests that they are part of
what is overridden. But the language doesn't quite work like that.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=302
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/31595.html
Moreover, it ought to be possible to put contracts on abstract or
interface methods. This wouldn't fit in with contracts being in the body.
Stewart.
