Feature request: Optional, simplified syntax for simple contracts

[Marco Leise]

Am Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:22:59 +0200
schrieb "TommiT" <tommitissari at hotmail.com>:

> On Sunday, 16 June 2013 at 00:19:37 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > Super awesome idea! How about coma separated expressions to 
> > perform
> > multiple asserts?
> >
> > int func(int i, int j) in(i<5, j<10)
> > {
> >   return i + j;
> > }
> 
> Do you mean ...to get more specific error messages than with 
> in(i<5 && j<10) ?

Actually these are 2 great ideas. Make that expand to:

  in {
      assert(i<5,  __FUNCTION__ ~ ": precondition i<5  failed. Variables: i == " ~ to!string(i));
      assert(j<10, __FUNCTION__ ~ ": precondition j<10 failed. Variables: j == " ~ to!string(j));
  }

-- 
Marco