On 19 August 2010 02:27, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday, August 18, 2010 17:09:59 Michel Fortin wrote: >> Le 2010-08-18 à 19:08, Jonathan M Davis a écrit : >> > The ideal situation would be to use asserts in all cases where it's going >> > to be bugs in the program rather than bad user input and that they go >> > away in release mode. >> >> I'd say the ideal situation would be to have the 'in' contracts checked on >> the caller's side. That way a program compiled in debug mode would still >> check the input it sends to Phobos, and whether Phobos was compiled in >> debug or release mode would only affect its internal checks, not the >> checks about its inputs. > > That would be nice. I doubt that that could be done very reasonably, if at > all. > But it would make good sense. If you could do it, there would be code bloat in > the debug version, but it would go away in release, so it shouldn't be a big > deal. A great idea, but I rather doubt it'll happen. But as you said, it would > be the ideal situation.
I'm not certain that the current scheme works correctly. There's an extremely nasty bug: 3602 ICE(tocsym.c) compiling a class, if its super class has preconditions as a result of in contracts being a nested function. _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
