version(CONTRACTS) for contracts?

[Daniel Keep]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> BCS wrote:
>> I think what you are trying for is what class invariants do.
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/class.html#invariants
>>
>> == Quote from Bill Baxter (dnewsgroup at billbaxter.com)'s article
>>> Is there a version statement that corresponds to whether or not
>>> contracts are enabled or not?
>>> I'd like to do something like
>>>    in { _check_data_structure_integrity() }
>>> for a bunch of my methods in my class, then something like
>>>     version(Contracts) {
>>>        _check_data_structure_integrity() {
>>>           // do a bunch of complicated stuff here
>>>           // and assert if anything's messed up.
>>>        }
>>>     }
>>> --bb
>>
> 
> Class invariants. Indeed so!
> 
> Still I don't think that covers all use cases.  If my invariant is very
> slow to compute and I have some methods that are very frequently called,
> then I'm not going to want to check it for every single method call.  It
> could make debugging way too slow.  Plus, if I know these three methods
> are the only three that affect this invariant then only those three
> methods should trigger an invariant check.
> 
> So I think something more fine grained than class invariants is needed.
>  Something like version(_DContracts) would do it.
> 
> --bb

Why don't you do something like this?

> in { version(SlowInvariants) _check_stuff(); }
>
> // ...
>
> version(SlowInvariants) {
>     void _check_stuff() {
>         // ...
>     }
> }

Then, when compiling, stick a -version=SlowInvariants on the command
line.  You should be able to set up a release and debug target in bud so
you only need to do this once.

	-- Daniel

-- 
Unlike Knuth, I have neither proven or tried the above; it may not even
make sense.

v2sw5+8Yhw5ln4+5pr6OFPma8u6+7Lw4Tm6+7l6+7D
i28a2Xs3MSr2e4/6+7t4TNSMb6HTOp5en5g6RAHCP  http://hackerkey.com/