Reading that summary, and deadalnix's further comment I am inclined to
agree that contracts should be (a) static.
It also made me think.. are we defining in/out contracts in the wrong
place? or in the wrong way? What if we defined them on interfaces
instead of classes? After all, interfaces are the other form of contracts
that we use in OOP and it would make sense to me that an in/out contract
defined on an interface would be static, and would not change dynamically
with sub-classes etc.
Perhaps we could have both static and dynamic contracts? Contracts
defined on classes (not interfaces) could remain dynamic as they are
currently, but contracts defined on interfaces could be static. Giving us
the best of both worlds.
Regan
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
