• Kagamin <spam here.lot> Mar 25 2011
• bearophile <bearophileHUGS lyco.com> Mar 25 2011

Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:

I can't think of an occasion when I would want to have my uses of 
enforce() stripped for a release build.


Ideally enforce shouldn't have side effects, so its removal shouldn't affect
your business logic.

Removing asserts once I am sure 
that my code has no logic errors make sense


Did you ever have this sense? Well, I can be sure "hello world" has no bugs,
but for something more complex... only if you're a programming god, but even
then your way won't suit us mortals.

Performance is irrelevant if you are processing corrupted memory or 
malformed input.


I believe, sometimes it's easier to make sure that the input is correct, than
to make sure the code has no bugs.

This means that libraries (should) have 2 types of assert, 
but I hesitate to suggest the creation of a synonym to help better 
document the difference between them, as I find that the use of in{} and 
out{} do a pretty good job of that already.


So you suggest to check iota's input in contract? They say, phobos is compiled
with -release flag, so all contracts are removed. Is it ok for D programmers?

bearophile <bearophileHUGS lyco.com> writes:

Kagamin:

 They say, phobos is compiled with -release flag, so all contracts are removed.


I presume this problem will be fixed "soon", probably with two versions of
Phobos in the standard distribution. Otherwise D contract programming loses a
significant part of its meaning and usefulness.

Bye,
bearophile