Contract programming syntax

[Bill Baxter]

More agreement here.

--bb

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:
> "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:gridbr$mv4$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>I like contract programming, it helps me avoid bugs. This is an example
>>from the docs:
>>
>> long squareRoot(long x)
>>    in {
>>        assert(x >= 0);
>>    }
>>
>>    out (result) {
>>        assert((result * result) <= x && (result+1) * (result+1) >= x);
>>    }
>>
>>    body {
>>        return cast(long)std.math.sqrt(cast(real)x);
>>    }
>>
>>
>> But isn't a syntax like the following better? To me it looks more logic,
>> because in{} and out(){} are part of the function, and there's no need of
>> a special syntax for the body (and the 'body' keyword):
>>
>> long squareRoot(long x) {
>>    in {
>>        assert(x >= 0);
>>    }
>>
>>    out (result) {
>>        assert((result * result) <= x && (result+1) * (result+1) >= x);
>>    }
>>
>>    return cast(long)std.math.sqrt(cast(real)x);
>> }
>>
>> Bye,
>> bearophile
>
> This is one of those things that has always kinda bugged me about the
> language, but I never really considered a big enough deal to bring up. But
> now that it has been brought up: Yes, I agree completely.
>
>
>