On 10/26/2010 07:25 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
An invariant that is not invariant is a meaningless attribute. It's like
"logical constness" where classes claim to be const but aren't.
an invariant which isn't used because it is too strict isn't much better.
Example:
class with some sort of state and public property function which grabs a
bit out of some field or something
inside method, state violates invariant and I can't call this property
function
I needed to use the property function, but I also needed the invariant
so I shoehorned it into a regular function and explicitly made the
calls. Ugly.
Though I suppose it was a slightly different case than what bearophile
is proposing
