Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>I wouldn't mind an optional OO contract system in the core of Perl,
>but this may be a case of "why do it in core when a module will work?"
I _think_ the proposal was to have design-by-contract in the perl core
in the sense that contract is checked
Michael wrote:
> I wouldn't mind an optional OO contract system in the core of Perl,
> but this may be a case of "why do it in core when a module will work?"
> Since OO contracts are typically turned off in production code any
> performance gains from adding it to the core wouldn't ma
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:28:29PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> I posted this to -qa and -internal, since I was suggesting this
> for the internal development of perl. Not for the user visible
> pieces.
My mistake. For the internals, sounds like it couldn't hurt. Though
I have no idea how put
I posted this to -qa and -internal, since I was suggesting this
for the internal development of perl. Not for the user visible
pieces.
If we will be going through an intermediate language, then that
language should/could/will/might support such specifications.
Then under appropriate prodding will
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 07:03:13AM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I wouldn't mind an optional OO contract system in the core of Perl,
> but this may be a case of "why do it in core when a module will work?"
Isn't this rather a language issue?
> Since OO contracts are typically turned off in
On Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 07:16:41PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> What do you think of creating a mechanism for attaching pre-, post-,
> invariant conditions to the internals?
I'd like to point out that two modules already do this.
Class::Contract which was just unleashed by Damian Conway, and
inv
