The point is that using these enforce() statements means that
these methods cannot be nothrow, which doesn't seem
particularly nice if it can be avoided. Now, on the one hand,
one could say that, quite obviously, these methods cannot
control their input. But on the other hand, it's reasonable to
say that these methods' input can and should never be anything
other than 100% controlled by the programmer.
My take is that, for this reason, these should be asserts and
not enforce() statements. What are your thoughts on the matter?
Assert's are disable by -release option. If you want to do check,
and don't want to raise exception you can define special function
like this:
import std.stdio;
void enforceNoThrow(bool pred, string msg, string file =
__FILE__, uint line = __LINE__)
{
if (!pred)
{
stderr.writefln("Fatal error: %s at %s:%s", msg, file,
line);
assert(0);
}
}
void doSomething(int min, int middle, int max)
{
enforceNoThrow(middle >= min && middle <= max, "middle out of
bounds");
}
doSomething(1, 5, 3); //prints error message into stderr and
terminate programm execution
This way is better for library code then asserts. Asserts should
be used for catching internal bugs, but incorrect code is
external bug (for extern library)
