Contract programming syntax

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Nick Sabalausky (a at a.a)'s article
> "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.

while(oldContractSyntaxSucks) {  // Currently evaluates to true.
    vote++;
}