On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 17:55:05 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
This would be added flexibility, rather than a
one-size-fits-all solution. So the word "universal" is a little
deceptive. The options could also include a user-defined hook
for assert.
Question: If `assert` itself allowed a user-defined hook, what
would the remaining justification be for decoupling `in` and
`out` contracts from the `assert` logic?
Because then you won't have normal asserts and contracts be
subject to different semantics?
If I use a library, I may very well want to disable the library's
internal assert checks (because I have enough experience that
it's working properly), but keep it's contracts alive, because my
code is still shiny new and riddled with bugs.
