A question about DbC
Jonathan M Davis
jmdavisProg at gmx.com
Sat Oct 9 04:32:26 PDT 2010
On Saturday 09 October 2010 04:23:25 Denis Koroskin wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:06:40 +0400, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>
> > On Saturday 09 October 2010 03:47:52 Denis Koroskin wrote:
> >> Why not just throw an exception and get a nice stack trace?
> > You get a stack trace anyway with an assertion failure. And sure, they
> > _could_
> > make it so that the only way to output anything from a contract is to
> > use an
> > exception, but not only would that be more of a pain than using
> > writeln(), but
> > it would mean that the only time you could output anything would be on
> > failure.
> > As it is, you can print something every time that a contract is run. You
> > couldn't do that with an exception.
> > - Jonathan M Davis
> I could do the same within a function body.
> Anyway, I don't see the discussion going anywhere, it's just a matter of
> preference and I don't really mind yours.
Well, regardless of what we think and what the pros and cons of the situation
actually are, as I understand it, the whole reason that contracts aren't pure is
so that you can use writeln() in them for debugging.
- Jonathan M Davis
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn