On Thursday, 19 September 2013 at 15:18:21 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
On 19/09/13 16:39, H. S. Teoh wrote:
At the very least, it would be nice to have access to x.old,
as Eiffel
allegedly allows, if we insist on letting x refer to the copy
of the
input value modified by the function body.
I absolutely agree that access to x.old is needed, but I don't
see the value or purpose in excluding the final value of x from
the out checks -- it's useful to be able to check those values,
too.
It is it worth requiring the contract to actually know the final
value of x?
Don't think so.
