[Issue 5027] Ghost fields for Contract Programming

[d-bugmail at puremagic.com]

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5027



--- Comment #3 from Bruno Medeiros <bdom.pub+deebugz at gmail.com> 2010-11-19 15:11:32 PST ---
If instead of:

@ghost static int x;

you have:

debug(contracts) static int x;

and "contracts" is said identifier that is only defined in non-release mode,
then the compiler can enforce those constraints equally well: Just compile it
in release and see if it compiles without errors or not. It might be a minor
drawback in compiling performance (if you need to compile twice), but it is not
any less of a drawback on compiler checking power.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------