• Tomasz Sowi&#324;ski <tomeksowi.remove.this gmail.and.this.com> Apr 09 2009
• Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> Apr 09 2009

Tomasz Sowi&#324;ski <tomeksowi.remove.this gmail.and.this.com> writes:

Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:

 OK, then what about:
 
 void foo()
 in { ... }
 out { ... }
 { ... }
 
 the 'body' keyword is completely arbitrary.  There is no ambiguity here.
 
 Also, I almost never use contracts because of their verbosity.  It's
 much shorter - and functionally equivalent - to just put asserts in
 the function body, some at the beginning and some in a scope(exit).


I like removing "body". But maybe we can make contracts a bit nicer by removing
braces if the contract contains only one statement:

void foo()
in assert(something);
out assert(something_else);
{ ... }

would that be ambiguous to the compiler?

Tomek

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Tomasz Sowiński wrote:
<snip>
 I like removing "body". But maybe we can make contracts a bit nicer by
removing braces if the contract contains only one statement:
 
 void foo()
 in assert(something);
 out assert(something_else);
 { ... }
 
 would that be ambiguous to the compiler?


Probably not, but I'm not sure I like it at all.  Firstly, it reminds me 
of the old crocky C syntax for declaring parameter types.  Secondly, if 
we're going to allow contracts on abstract/interface functions, would 
you need to write two semicolons in a row with this syntax?

(Maybe there's no need for a semicolon in lieu of the body in such 
cases.  It's just what the compiler used to allow, though it never 
actually did anything with the contracts.)

Stewart.