On Thursday, 22 June 2017 at 12:54:00 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
On Thursday, 22 June 2017 at 10:59:18 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner
wrote:
Again, that's not what H.S. Teoh's proposal would do. All it
does is install an *implementation agnostic*, *abtract* way to
specify contracts into the grammar. Whether that is lowered to
assert, or anything else is an implementation detail and it
certainly isn't fixed to asserts.
Okay. Then the proposal needs to be accompanied by an explicit
description of how to hook into the new semantics. Which is
what you provided, but I suppose it would need to be exactly
specified. In particular, where exactly is the code for the
(optional) user-defined hook to be found? In a separate file,
maybe as indicated with a command line option, e.g.
`-contractsConfig=myContracts.d`?
As long as one is doing this, maybe a proposal for user-defined
`assert` should be provided too? It'd be interesting to have a
dedicated file for user-defined assert and contract
configuration. The core idea is to allow *everyone*, from large
companies to individual hobbyists, to use `assert`, `in`, and
`out`, and have it work the way they want. I would definitely
need help writing that DIP.
