On 2/4/15 4:37 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Thursday, 5 February 2015 at 00:35:50 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Contracts can be read by tools, and they are part of the function
signature. Contracts should be encouraged and increased, not discouraged.
I agree. Moreover, if the assert fails in the contract, in theory, we
can point the error at the user's code. An assert inside the function is
the function's responsibility. An assert in an in contract is the
caller's responsibility. They're semantically different (even if dmd
treats them the same way)
Yah I concede this is a good point. Yet we're looking at an actual
liability and are supposed to look at some vague possible future
benefit. -- Andrei
