220 11702 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "J. Daniel Garcia" Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Value constraints (or contract programming in C++) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 22:17:21 +0200 Lines: 137 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf301cc0c8dd8d0304fdb4495d X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1404850692 19875 80.91.229.3 (8 Jul 2014 20:18:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 20:18:12 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCFIPGWXVYIRB6VD6GOQKGQE5PRMSNQ@isocpp.org Tue Jul 08 22:18:05 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-yh0-f71.google.com ([209.85.213.71]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1X4bpz-0007cx-TX for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 22:18:04 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-yh0-f71.google.com with SMTP id t59sf25887371yho.6 for ; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 13:18:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=DjCCSt+Rwh81o/FhSlCyVOzrHhXtIyQ/QUJDpEp9HYA=; b=KLy3p3Vout00kFBwUpl5VPVdccm9Z9iK/vMTbijYZDlfG5JKWeNUPVpLAvLZmzf/Hz ZxaGTDQlCcI+rtD6UYfbRs9XtsfAmBVgNZDqqhdv2TsOsVESLnhnTQEPZUFGSk45lpU3 1vGY+aK5z2t8dRecsKq8+DpoX+6TFE9ISe2W/gsZd/mL9ZHunkRSaTd7tPAfArSWEpqF 0KKOc+PEvygGZlI3osODG8AhpfLtmIcAS37XTvJG5jWfP80ZbjjKDjf4vni3SR48dpxA kgWM9NjeaHMR+Ca7EHAB8MTlrwYhm3TIMiG3D9N+8cy3GcqmhDS6kf7Cp8rB1yLaBEas +JmQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnNrMY1cWf6p75WTxA/7JEIxZyonfdWbCal8sGvC6EswsVvIMLukEpU6cue1CdZhBjZueym X-Received: by 10.236.124.131 with SMTP id x3mr15851624yhh.14.1404850682905; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 13:18:02 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.50.61.133 with SMTP id p5ls537331igr.41.gmail; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 13:18:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.80.40 with SMTP id o8mr2249396igx.1.1404850682263; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 13:18:02 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-ie0-x22a.google.com (mail-ie0-x22a.google.com [2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a13si4582786igm.21.2014.07.08.13.18.02 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Jul 2014 13:18:02 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of josedaniel.garcia.uc3m@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a; Original-Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id lx4so4477276iec.29 for ; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 13:18:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.42.51.204 with SMTP id f12mr43426239icg.21.1404850682037; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 13:18:02 -0700 (PDT) Original-Sender: josedaniel.garcia.uc3m@gmail.com Original-Received: by 10.64.227.41 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 13:17:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: josedaniel.garcia@uc3m.es X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of josedaniel.garcia.uc3m@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a as permitted sender) smtp.mail=josedaniel.garcia.uc3m@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:11702 Archived-At: --20cf301cc0c8dd8d0304fdb4495d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable There are pros and cons on adding contracts to the type of a function. N4110 does not take a clear position on this issue. In any case a function contract is part of its interface specification. However, take note that global state is also accessible from contract checks. On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Klaim - Jo=C3=ABl Lamotte wrote: > Another question: if I understand correctly, the contracts should be part > of the signature of functions? > If so, does it means that you have to write the contract too when you > forward-declare a free function? > If so, does it means that you would be able to check ONLY arguments and > return value for free functions? > > > On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Klaim - Jo=C3=ABl Lamotte > wrote: > >> Andrzej, one thing I've been wondering while reading your paper (and >> N4110, I'm in the middle right now) >> is: should contracts have a role in overload resolution and if yes how? >> I know it's early to get into specifics but maybe your paper could at >> least mention the question? >> >> =E2=80=8B >> > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. > To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. > --=20 ---=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposa= ls/. --20cf301cc0c8dd8d0304fdb4495d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There are pros and cons on adding contracts to the type of= a function. N4110 does not take a clear position on this issue.

In any case a function contract is part of its interface specifica= tion. However, take note that global state is also accessible from contract= checks.


On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Klaim - = Jo=C3=ABl Lamotte <mjklaim@gmail.com> wrote:
Another question: if I unde= rstand correctly, the contracts should be part of the signature of function= s?
If so, does it means that you have to write the contract too when you forwa= rd-declare a free function?=C2=A0
If so, does it means that you would be able to check ONLY arguments an= d return value for free functions?


On= Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Klaim - Jo=C3=ABl Lamotte &= lt;mjklaim@gmail.com= > wrote:
Andrzej, one thing I've= been wondering while reading your paper (and N4110, I'm in the middle = right now)
is: should contracts have a role in overload resolution and if yes how?
I know it's early to get into specifics but maybe your paper cou= ld at least mention the question?

=E2=80=8B

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/gro= up/std-proposals/.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposa= ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<= /a>.
--20cf301cc0c8dd8d0304fdb4495d-- .