On 01/27/2013 02:27 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-01-27 13:52, Artur Skawina wrote:
It overloads the keywords, but afaict should be unambiguous and is not
worse than the other meanings of 'in' (operator, modifier). But I haven't
really used contracts w/ D (the basic features need to work right first,
before worrying about extras like that); somebody who actually uses them
would be in a better position to determine if overloading 'in' and 'out'
further would be too confusing.
I'm not talking about confusing. I'm thinking if it's ambiguous or not
and how to attach contracts to a property with this syntax.
class A{
private int i;
int foo{
out out(result){assert(result<=0);}body{return i; }
in(int v)in{assert(v<=0);}out{assert(foo<=0);}body{ i = v; }
}
}
