AMDG First of all, *Yes, Contract should be accepted into Boost* I've only really looked at part of the documentation so far. Here's my comments from that. I may have more later depending on how much time I have. index.html: - "Contract Programming (CP) allows to specify" Use a gerund (specifying) instead of an infinitive. An infinitive here needs a subject. - "... allowing to find bugs ..." Same problem, although it can't be fixed in the same way, since the participle + gerund would sound awkward. It could be handled with a passive infinitive. (allowing bugs to be found) - "and it was first introduced by the Eiffel programming language " You can leave out the "it." It sounds awkward to me. - "Eiffel programming language" Using this repeatedly sounds a bit pedantic. You can just say "Eiffel" after the first occurance. - The side by side code in the example gets a bit wide. This will definitely be a problem if you want the documentation to be generated as a PDF. - I don't understand why the library needs to deal with access control. Why can't the user just use public: private: protected: as usual? - CONTRACT_OLDOF kind of sticks out at me. I don't really like the way it looks having it a macro when everything else is keywords that are parsed by the top level macros. - "...if there is a bug in the function caller for which push_back is called when size is equal to max_size ..." This clause is somewhat confusing. - "...with the assertion number to uniquely identity..." s/identity/identify/. Also don't split infinitives. - "This library suffers of two limitations" s/of/from/ getting_started.html: - "This section explains how to setup..." "set up" should be two words. "setup" as one word is a noun. - "... failure of the checked condition does not abort the program, instead ..." Run on sentence. - "The implementation of this library uses..., templates with partial specializations and function pointers (similarly to Boost.Function), ..." I don't understand the connection between partial specialization and function pointers. Why are they grouped together? contract_programming_overview.html: - "It is assumed that programmes" s/programmes/programmers/ - "...to formally program specifications". Don't split the infinitive. "to program specifications formally" - "Then, this library aims to be ..." "Then" doesn't sound right here. "Then" is usually used for conditions ("if... then") or sequences (e.g. First.... Then...), but there's nothing for it to connect to here. - "Contract Programming is characterized by the following type of assertion mechanisms." s/type/types/ - "before the body execution." I think it would sound better to use the possesive "body's execution" or "execution of the body". rather than apposition. - "Preconditions cannot be strengthen, postconditions and class invariants cannot be weaken. " s/strengthen/strengthened/, s/weaken/weakened/ - I'm not sure that I would consider Subcontracting to be an assertion mechanism. - "Block Invariants | These are logical conditions that programmers except ..." s/except/expect/ - "...while a contract assertions is ..." s/assertions/assertion/ - "This library implement this feature however it should be noted ..." Run on sentence. - "protect such a global variable from racing conditions " It's called a "race condition." - "but that will effectively introduce a global lock in the program" This seems like a classic use case for thread specific storage. - "Furhtermore," s/Furhtermore/Furthermore/ - "Contracts are part of the source code, they are..." Run on sentence (comma splice) - "detailed error messages that greatly helps debugging" "helps" needs to agree with "messages." - "Contract Programming benefits come to the cost of performance " "to" is the wrong preposition. Try "at." - "The run-time performances are negatively ..." "performance" should be singular. Plural doesn't really make sense for abstract nouns like this. - "1. The extra processing required to check the assertions. 2. The extra processing required by the additional function calls (additional functions are invoked to check preconditions, postconditions, class invariants, etc)." How is (2) different from (1)? - "checking function arguments using postconditions " I think you mean /pre/conditions. - "so that these initializations can relay" s/relay/rely/ - "C++ object construction mechanism ..." You need an article. "The C++..." - "Check the non-static class invariants, but only if the body threw an exception." This could use a rationale. Destructors are generally not supposed to throw at all. - "Contracts are only responsible to check the " "for checking" instead of "to check." - "...to only use public members, Eiffel instead ..." Split infinitive, run-on sentence. - "...are allowed to brake class invariants..." s/brake/break/ - "Arbitrary code in contracts | No, assertions only." This is a bit misleading, since assertions can execute arbitrary code. tutorial.html: - "complete guide on this library syntax" s/library/library's/ - result == oldof valule s/valule/value/ - "int const" IIRC, you can't have a const rvalue of a built-in type. - "parameter names can instead by omitted " s/by/be/ - params_postinc You didn't update the pre/post conditions when you copied this from the last example. - "Function and array types cannot be directly used as function parameter types within the contract macros but extra typedef declarations can be used to workaround this limitation " This workaround doesn't work in function templates where the array element or dimension is deduced. - "the maximum number of supported array dimensions is specified by the CONTRACT_CONFIG_ARRAY_DIMENSION_MAX macro" I don't understand the reason for this limitation. - "...evaluates all contract conditions in constant-correct context" Add an article "a" before "const-correct." - "the type of value type" Delete the second "type." - ConstantCopyConstructible You're definitition of CopyConstructible is wrong. A type that only defines T(T&) is not CopyConstructible. - "However, it is still necessary to ontract" s/ontract/contract/ - unique_identifiers I think it's worth pointing out that the postcondition can't assume that the precondition was true in the face of subcontracting. I did a double take when I saw old_found. - "Wakened inherited preconditions ..." s/Wakened/Weakened/ oldof.hpp: The definition of CONCEPT_OLDOF is a bit dangerous. It can't safely be passed as a macro argument. What do you think of this bit of PP magic: #define TEST_EXPAND_EXPAND_OLDOF(x) CONTRACT_OLDOF #define TEST_EXPAND_NOTHING(x) oldof #define TEST_EXPAND_I(x) TEST_EXPAND_ ## x #define TEST_EXPAND(x) TEST_EXPAND_I(x) #define oldof TEST_EXPAND(EXPAND_OLDOF(NOTHING(z))) #define EXPAND_OLDOF(expr) expr oldof -> expands to itself EXPAND_OLDOF(random text oldof more random text) -> expands to random text CONTRACT_OLDOF more random text General: - Are ellipsis parameters allowed? - Just say "parentheses," not "round parentheses." Parentheses without any qualification always means (). In Christ, Steven Watanabe