Output contract's arguements

[Dicebot]

On Thursday, 19 September 2013 at 15:18:21 UTC, Joseph Rushton 
Wakeling wrote:
> On 19/09/13 16:39, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> At the very least, it would be nice to have access to x.old, 
>> as Eiffel
>> allegedly allows, if we insist on letting x refer to the copy 
>> of the
>> input value modified by the function body.
>
> I absolutely agree that access to x.old is needed, but I don't 
> see the value or purpose in excluding the final value of x from 
> the out checks -- it's useful to be able to check those values, 
> too.

It is it worth requiring the contract to actually know the final 
value of x?
Don't think so.