Huh, invariant() {...} ?

[Ary Manzana]

This can only be a win!

1. If the invariant keyword will be left with those two meaning, than 
for consistency unit tests should be written:

unittest() {
}

Which leaves the possibility to specify something between the parens:

unittest("List adds correctly an element") {
}

and then when an assert fails within a unittest, that message could also 
be displayed.

Also a string could be specified in a class invariant, with the same 
purpose.

2. If one of the invariant keyword will be changed by another 
(classinvariant) or (immutable), that everything will be clearer.

:)

Kristian Kilpi escribió:
> 
> This is a small detail, but I found myself wondering why the class 
> invariant declarations have now parenthesis (in 2.0, that is).
> 
> I mean, you cannot write something like this:
> 
>   invariant {
>     int* p;  //invariant int* p;
>   }
> 
> Or can you?
> 
> 
> The class invariant declarations are no longer consistent with other 
> class blocks, which is a shame.
> 
>   class A {
>     invariant() {  //hmmm, should I put parens here or not?
>       ...
>     }
>     unittest {  //how about here?
>       ...
>     }
>   }
> 
> 
> It may be clearer anyway to use different keyword for the class 
> invariants, 'classinvariant' or something.
> 
> Or change the new 'invariant' keyword to 'invar'...
> 
>   const int* p1;
>   invar int* p2;
> 
> (Less typing, and then both the keywords would be 5 chars long (a little 
> bonus).)