Another idiom I wish were gone from phobos/druntime

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 2/4/15 5:32 PM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Thursday, 5 February 2015 at 01:07:56 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Yah, I agree "in" is useful for overridable functions. In fact I'd say
>> it's useful _only_ for overridable functions.
>>
>
> Putting the contract in the caller is not only useful for overridable
> functions.
>
> 1/ If a lib is compiled in without contract, but your code is compiled
> with, you get the in contract to run when you call library code, but not
> the assert within the function.
>
> 2/ The optimizer see the properties of the argument when they get to the
> in contract. This information is lost in the callee, unless inlining
> goes on. that means the amount of contract the optimizer can remove
> statically is greater with in contract.

Yah, I understand the potential there. Consider me grudgingly convinced 
:o). -- Andrei