Communicating between in and out contracts

[Michel Fortin]

On 2009-10-20 11:44:00 -0400, "Steven Schveighoffer" 
<schveiguy at yahoo.com> said:

> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:36:14 -0400, Michel Fortin  
> <michel.fortin at michelf.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2009-10-20 08:16:01 -0400, "Steven Schveighoffer"  
>> <schveiguy at yahoo.com> said:
>> 
>>> Incidentally, shouldn't all access to the object in the in contract be  
>>>  const by default anyways?
>> 
>> Hum, access to everything (including global variables, arguments), not  
>> just the object, should be const in a contract. That might be harder to 
>>  implement though.
> 
> Yeah, you are probably right.  Of course, a const function can still 
> alter  global state, but if you strictly disallowed altering global 
> state, we are  left with only pure functions (and I think that's a 
> little harsh).

Not exactly. Pure functions can't even read global state (so their 
result can't depend on anything but their arguments), but it makes 
perfect sense to read global state in a contract. What you really need 
is to have a const view of the global state. And this could apply to 
all asserts too.


-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/