What is the case against a struct post-blit default constructor?

[monarch_dodra]

On Monday, 15 October 2012 at 15:56:33 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
>
>
> Isn't it possible to customize when an "invariant" is called 
> using contracts?
>
> For example:
>
> struct S
> {
>    private bool isValid;
>    private void _invariant() {assert(isValid);}
>
>    void foo()
>    in { _invariant();} out {_invariant();} body
>    {
>       // whatever
>    }
>
>    void opAssign(ref S other)
>    out {_invariant();} body
>    {
>       isValid = other.isValid;
>    }
> }
>
> ???
>
> Yeah, It's extra work.  But essentially, isn't this what you 
> want?  The thing about disabling invariant checks on some 
> specific function in some specific case is that someone else 
> has a valid case for requiring it.
>
> The only sucky part about the above is, _invariant is compiled 
> in even in release mode (though it should inline to a noop).
>
> -Steve

There is now an "assert" word for version blocks so you can put 
your code inside that, and it doesn't get compiled in during 
release.