Contract programming syntax

[Stewart Gordon]

Michel Fortin wrote:
<snip>
> I believe the syntax should make the contracts part of the function 
> signature, not part of the function body, because contracts are about 
> expressing the function's interface. So I disagree with your proposed 
> syntax which puts the contracts as part of the body.
<snip>

Finally, a counter-argument with which I agree.  Moreover, having in/out 
contracts as part of the function body suggests that they are part of 
what is overridden.  But the language doesn't quite work like that.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=302
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/31595.html

Moreover, it ought to be possible to put contracts on abstract or 
interface methods.  This wouldn't fit in with contracts being in the body.

Stewart.