Are contracts intended for verifying @safety;

Somebody via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn at puremagic.com
Mon Nov 7 13:13:50 PST 2016


On Monday, 7 November 2016 at 21:05:32 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
>
> No. @trusted. The calling function could only be marked @safe 
> if the callee were @trusted, and I was suggesting that it be 
> marked @system so that it's then clear to the caller that they 
> need to pass the correct arguments for it to be okay to treat 
> it as @safe and mark the caller as @trusted. If need be, the 
> contract can be documented to make it clear what's required for 
> it to be reasonable to mark the caller as @trusted.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Oh, I see. I think I prefer to use the modified enforce trough 
(see above), so I have no need to make @trusted layers in the 
calling site. Thanks anyway.




More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn mailing list