Hi Vicente,
You have no comented my suggestion to don't duplicate the signature. Instead of letting the C++ signature, generate it from the macro, so
void push_back(const T& element) CONTRACT_FUNCTION( (inherit)(pushable<T>) // No class type. (public) (void) (push_back)( (const T&)(element) )
will become
// NO NEED OF THE C++ SIGNATURE // void push_back(const T& element) CONTRACT_FUNCTION( (inherit)(pushable<T>) // No class type. (public) (void) (push_back)( (const T&)(element) )
Hi, please could you comment my suggestion?
This is possible (I will have to extend the signature-sequence just a bit to include default argument values, exception specifications, member list initializations, and absolutely anything else you can program in a C++ function declaration -- but most of the declaration tokens are already there). There is a question of what syntax is more readable vs. which syntax requires more programmers' coding work. I have asked this question to all Boosters -- see separate email thread. Thanks, Lorenzo