• Serg Kovrov (17/17) Jan 17 2007 It would be nice to have some sort of 'contracts scope' shared between
• Daniel Keep (17/34) Jan 17 2007 The only thing I can think of is maybe use a private global variable.

Serg Kovrov <kovrov no.spam> writes:

It would be nice to have some sort of 'contracts scope' shared between 
`in` and `out`.
I'm looking a way to implement something like this:

ubyte[] foo(ubyte[] src, inout ubyte[] dst)
in
{
     auto ptr = dst.ptr;
}
out
{
     if (ptr != dst.ptr) wtitefln("dst reallocated");
}
body
{
     ....

-- 
serg.

Daniel Keep <daniel.keep+lists gmail.com> writes:

Serg Kovrov wrote:
 It would be nice to have some sort of 'contracts scope' shared between 
 `in` and `out`.
 I'm looking a way to implement something like this:
 
 ubyte[] foo(ubyte[] src, inout ubyte[] dst)
 in
 {
     auto ptr = dst.ptr;
 }
 out
 {
     if (ptr != dst.ptr) wtitefln("dst reallocated");
 }
 body
 {
     ....
 

The only thing I can think of is maybe use a private global variable.

private ubyte[] _foo_ptr;
ubyte[] foo(ubyte[] src, inout ubyte[] dst)
in
{
     _foo_ptr = dst.ptr;
}
out
{
     if (_foo_ptr != dst.ptr) writefln("dst reallocated");
}
body
{
     ....

Not an ideal solution, and it's not thread-safe, but should be OK.

     -- Daniel