You lose the ability to see changes of contract in your diff (which I think is the thing I most want).
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 at 15:56 Robert Johnstone <r.w.johnst...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > This seems more like a question for tooling. It has already been > discussed that there should be a tool to read a body and provide a > minimised or canonical contract. Perhaps we forgo writing the contract in > code, and rely on godoc to determine the contract for the documentation? > > The contracts will be useful if they are used to constrain the > implementation. > > - Robert > > > On Thursday, 6 September 2018 18:18:13 UTC-4, soapboxcicero wrote: > >> If the contract for a type is entirely inferred in order to know the >> types it accepts you have to read all of its code, every line. The >> contract let's you boil that down to the salient points so you can >> read line a few lines instead of a few hundred or a few thousand. >> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:15 PM Thomas Wilde <sedevel...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > 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 <ia...@golang.org> wrote: >> > >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 7:41 AM, thwd <sedevel...@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...@googlegroups.com. >> > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- > 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. > -- 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.
