Marshall schrieb: > David Hopwood wrote: >> This property is, after all, not something that the program should depend on. >> It is determined by how good the static checker currently is, and we want to >> be >> able to improve checkers (and perhaps even allow them to regress slightly in >> order to simplify them) without changing programs. > > Hmmm. I have heard that argument before and I'm conflicted.
I'd want several things. A way for me to indicate what assertions must be proven statically. Highlighting (be it compiler messages or flashing colors in an IDE) that marks assertions that *will* break. And highlighting for assertions that *may* break. In the language, a (possibly) simplicistic inference engine definition that gives me minimum guarantees about the things that it will be able to prove; if something is out of the reach of the engine, a straightforward way to add intermediate assertions until the inference succeeds. (Plus diagnostics that tell me where the actual error may be, whether it's a bug in the code or an omission in the assertions. That's probably the hardest part of it all.) Regards, Jo -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
