Re: What is the case against a struct post-blit default constructor?

[monarch_dodra]

On Monday, 15 October 2012 at 15:56:33 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:

Isn't it possible to customize when an "invariant" is called 
using contracts?

For example:

struct S
{
   private bool isValid;
   private void _invariant() {assert(isValid);}

   void foo()
   in { _invariant();} out {_invariant();} body
   {
      // whatever
   }

   void opAssign(ref S other)
   out {_invariant();} body
   {
      isValid = other.isValid;
   }
}

???

Yeah, It's extra work.  But essentially, isn't this what you 
want?  The thing about disabling invariant checks on some 
specific function in some specific case is that someone else 
has a valid case for requiring it.

The only sucky part about the above is, _invariant is compiled 
in even in release mode (though it should inline to a noop).

-Steve

There is now an "assert" word for version blocks so you can put 
your code inside that, and it doesn't get compiled in during 
release.