Andrei's Google Talk

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 08/04/2010 06:38 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 17:56:44 -0400, Walter Bright
> <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
>> bearophile wrote:
>>> 27.50, "transactional file copy": this example was script-like, and
>>> as short
>>> as possible to fit into one single slide, so in this case I think using
>>> enforce() is OK. But in true programs I suggest all D programmers to use
>>> DesignByContract with assert() more and to use enforce() less. Among
>>> other
>>> things enforce() kills inlining possibilities and inflates code. In
>>> D.learn I
>>> have seen people use enforce() in a situation where DbC is designed
>>> for. I
>>> think the D community needs to learn a bit more DbC, and in my
>>> opinion to do
>>> this the leaders have to lead the way.
>>
>> There's a misunderstanding here. Contract programming is for detecting
>> program bugs. enforce() is for detecting and handling errors such as
>> disk failures and bad user input.
>>
>> They are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and must not be conflated.
>
> Yes, but as has been discussed and resolved on phobos mailing list,
> usage errors should not be handled via uncaught exceptions. I think the
> example is flawed in that regard. I wouldn't bring it up, but people who
> haven't followed that discussion might get the wrong idea from this
> example.

Well I agree with the spirit but let me say this. If all I want is a 
short script that does the right thing, I don't care whether failure 
comes with a stack trace caboose. So I don't think the example is flawed 
at all - it stands as a short correct script that does something useful.

Andrei