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

[MysticZach via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 22 June 2017 at 12:54:00 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 June 2017 at 10:59:18 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner 
> wrote:
>> Again, that's not what H.S. Teoh's proposal would do. All it 
>> does is install an *implementation agnostic*, *abtract* way to 
>> specify contracts into the grammar. Whether that is lowered to 
>> assert, or anything else is an implementation detail and it 
>> certainly isn't fixed to asserts.
>
> Okay. Then the proposal needs to be accompanied by an explicit 
> description of how to hook into the new semantics. Which is 
> what you provided, but I suppose it would need to be exactly 
> specified. In particular, where exactly is the code for the 
> (optional) user-defined hook to be found? In a separate file, 
> maybe as indicated with a command line option, e.g. 
> `-contractsConfig=myContracts.d`?

As long as one is doing this, maybe a proposal for user-defined 
`assert` should be provided too? It'd be interesting to have a 
dedicated file for user-defined assert and contract 
configuration. The core idea is to allow *everyone*, from large 
companies to individual hobbyists, to use `assert`, `in`, and 
`out`, and have it work the way they want. I would definitely 
need help writing that DIP.