Re: Design by Contract

> OTOH, don't our new parsing improvements allow us to handle syntax like this without introducing a keyword that would be forbidden as class/function name Not that I am aware of, the AST stuff didn't touch the parser like that, it has the same limitations it had before AFAIK. Cheers Joe On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org> wrote: > > Just a thought - what about something like __pre/__post? We own __*, so > no BC problems. > > I'm not married to the words being used, at all. > > I think this is a good idea, we would need __pre, __post , and > __invariant, or some combination of three. > > Any objection to using __ prefixed names, and any other suggestion for > them, or just use the above ? > > Cheers > Joe > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> >> function foo($a) >> >> require($a >= 0) >> >> { >> >> } >> > >> > This is a step better but still we have the similar issues with >> > readability, to which reuse of 'require' is added. >> >> Just a thought - what about something like __pre/__post? We own __*, so >> no BC problems. >> OTOH, don't our new parsing improvements allow us to handle syntax like >> this without introducing a keyword that would be forbidden as >> class/function name? The context is pretty unambiguous here. >> -- >> Stas Malyshev >> smalyshev@gmail.com >> > >