DIP 1009--Improve Contract Usability--Preliminary Review Round 1
Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Fri Jun 23 06:00:30 PDT 2017
On 6/23/17 5:06 AM, Solomon E wrote:
> What I expected from my impression of existing D syntax was that
> something like this might be coming up:
>
> T foo(T)(T x, T y)
> in (x > 0, y > 0)
> out (r; r > 0)
> {
> return x % y + 1;
> }
The out contract looks pretty good actually. The in contract, not as
good. That looks like a comma expression. I'd rather see this be:
in(x > 0)
in(y > 0)
or
in(x > 0 && y > 0)
In this case, we have something I think I would support.
-Steve
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list