On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 07:20:21PM +0200, Timon Gehr wrote: > On 08/26/2013 06:47 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote: > >On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 06:16:25PM +0200, Timon Gehr wrote: > >>On 08/26/2013 08:49 AM, deadalnix wrote: > >>> > >>>We simply need to add invariant check in the caller, not the callee, > >>>and not introduce them if the caller is itself subject to invariant > >>>insertion when called. > >> > >>The issue with this is that the invariant is not part of the public > >>interface. > > > >The fact that contracts are not part of the public interface greatly > >limits the usefulness of DbC in D. If they *were* part of the public > >interface, there'd be more options to improve it. > > > >But this isn't the first time this is brought up, and it still seems no > >solution is in sight. :-( > > > > > >T > > > > (This was not a statement about Ds implementation. The invariant is > by design a place to state facts about implementation details.)
Oh. I misunderstood what you said, then. T -- The two rules of success: 1. Don't tell everything you know. -- YHL
