version(CONTRACTS) for contracts?

[Derek Parnell]

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 12:06:34 +0900, 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

I can do this with the next Bud. 

If "-release" is used, I can add "version=_Drelease" to the command line.
If "-release" is *not* used, I can add "version=_Dcontracts" to the command
line.
If "-unittest" is used, I can add "version=_Dunittest" to the command line.
If "-O" is used, I can add "version=_Doptimized" to the command line.

Is anyone interested in this idea? Does it need tweaking? 

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocrity!"
9/11/2006 2:13:20 PM