Thanks for the response. I think the question then becomes: if the syntax in contract bodies was an unrestricted Go block, then why do I need to repeat my function's operations in a contract?
If the syntax of contract bodies is free, then the Go compiler could easily deduce all my constraints from a function body directly -- no need for a separate contract. Thanks again and all the best, - Tom On Thu, Sep 6, 2018, 22:26 Ian Lance Taylor <i...@golang.org> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 7:41 AM, thwd <sedeveloper...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > From the draft proposal I gather two open questions: > > - How free or restricted should contract bodies be? > > I believe it's useful to have contract bodies simply be arbitrary > function bodies, as the current design draft suggests. This is > because I believe that is conceptually the simplest choice. You don't > have to remember two different syntaxes, one for code and one for > contract bodies. You just have to remember a single syntax, one you > must know in any case to write any Go code at all. > > > - How many implicit constraints can be inferred from usage? > > As few as we can get away with. > > > > If too much syntax is allowed in contract bodies and no implicit > constraints > > are gathered: > > people will copy and paste function bodies into contracts to cover all > > constraints. > > People do suggest that that will happen but I think it is extremely > unlikely in practice. It's obviously a terrible coding style, and > almost all generic functions have trivial contract requirements. > > Ian > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
