DIP 1006 - Preliminary Review Round 1

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 12 April 2017 at 15:37:14 UTC, Mathias Lang wrote:
> It was a conscious decision to provide something simple to use, 
> over something which allowed more control (good old KISS). If a 
> use case for it develop in the future, the addition will be 
> trivial.

Well, it's not simple to use if it doesn't fulfil your use-case. 
;-)

With that in mind, it would seem simpler overall to not make 
assumptions about use-cases, and just allow the user a free 
choice of what kinds of contract they disable:

     --disable-contracts=invariant,in,out,assert,all

(Yes, I'm intentionally suggesting allowing 
`--disable-contracts=in`, `--disable-contracts=out`, and 
`--disable-contracts=in,out`.)