DIP 1009--Improve Contract Usability--Preliminary Review Round 1

[MysticZach via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 09:10:33 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 05:19:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> Umm... I think we're not quite on the same page here.  What 
>> *else* are people supposed to use inside their contracts 
>> besides the built-in assert??
>
> I believe `assert` would have to be extremely robust to merit 
> being included directly into the syntax of the language. I'm 
> not opposed to this in principle. But I'm no expert, and not 
> willing to assume it's desirable. On the other hand, if 
> `assert` were made so perfect as to ensure that no one would 
> prefer a different method of bailing out of their programs, 
> then you're right, and the problem of contract syntax could be 
> solved at that level instead of the more "pedestrian" approach 
> I'm taking.

So weird how this discussion is happening in parallel with this 
other discussion :-) :

http://forum.dlang.org/post/rkdpuuggltowhqmcmmke@forum.dlang.org