Another idiom I wish were gone from phobos/druntime

[Vlad Levenfeld via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 5 February 2015 at 06:26:17 UTC, Meta wrote:
> I've found that the more years of experience I have under my 
> belt, the less documentation I wrote. When I was starting out I 
> was very diligent in doing everything the Correct Way so as to 
> cultivate good habits. I'd find my regression over the years 
> more alarming if I cared enough.

$0.02:

I personally use contracts quite a lot to tighten the screws on 
my interfaces. I don't like writing documentation, mostly on 
account of I refactor so aggressively it winds up being wasted 
effort in a lot of cases (though I do make notes when I think 
something is complex enough to forget or unlikely to change), so 
instead I opt to "document" via unittest and assert messages in 
contracts.

One of my main internal packages consists of a set of mixin 
templates that generate operators from supplied primitives. The 
release runtime is meant to be light, and mostly offers syntactic 
sugar (more importantly, unified interfaces with predictable 
semantics) so code for each layer winds up being between 1:1 and 
60:1 contract to body.

 From a documentation perspective, being able to open up the "out" 
block and see that the enclosing struct's length values must 
reflect the values passed to the allocation primitive is nice. 
Being able to open up the "body" block and see, without the 
clutter of all the bounds checks and whatnot, opIndex just 
forwards the call to the access primitive in one line - also nice.

I love dbC in D. I think in/out makes things clean and obvious. I 
could care less about the line count, I use code-folding anyway.