version(CONTRACTS) for contracts?

[Stewart Gordon]

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?
<snip>
> 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 _check_data_structure_integrity is compiled only if DBC is enabled? 
That's really a matter of compiler/linker optimisation.  A design 
principle of D is that language features to compensate for compiler 
naivety are, in general, omitted.

> So I think something more fine grained than class invariants is needed. 
>  Something like version(_DContracts) would do it.

Why the name _DContracts?


-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-@ C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS- 
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.