Another idiom I wish were gone from phobos/druntime

[ketmar via Digitalmars-d]

On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 16:43:04 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> On 2/4/15 4:37 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> On Thursday, 5 February 2015 at 00:35:50 UTC, bearophile wrote:
>>> Contracts can be read by tools, and they are part of the function
>>> signature. Contracts should be encouraged and increased, not
>>> discouraged.
>>
>>
>> I agree. Moreover, if the assert fails in the contract, in theory, we
>> can point the error at the user's code. An assert inside the function
>> is the function's responsibility. An assert in an in contract is the
>> caller's responsibility. They're semantically different (even if dmd
>> treats them the same way)
> 
> Yah I concede this is a good point. Yet we're looking at an actual
> liability and are supposed to look at some vague possible future
> benefit. -- Andrei

wait, do you mean that there was paradigm shift and we will no more keep 
shit in the language due to non-existent Jack The Random Reddit User told 
that he used that shit once? does that mean that typle syntax PR will be 
accepted, 'cause blocking it is a look at some vague possible future 
benefit?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20150205/a217a62d/attachment.sig>