Hello all, I simplified the library syntax as shown by the example below. I think with these changes the library matches very closely the Contract Programming C++ standard proposal (see n1962, Crowl and Ottosen, 2006). A notable difference is still the (unavoidable) many extra parenthesis required by the Boost.Preprocessor signature sequence. Comments? #include <contract.hpp> #include <vector> template<typename T> class myvector: public pushable<T> { CONTRACT_INVARIANT( ({ CONTRACT_ASSERT( (size() == 0) == empty() ); }) ) public: void push_back(const T& element) CONTRACT_FUNCTION( (class) (copyable)(myvector) (inherit)(pushable<T>) // Subcontracting. (public) (void) (push_back)( (const T&)(element) ) (precondition) ({ CONTRACT_ASSERT( size() < max_size() ); }) (postcondition) ({ CONTRACT_ASSERT( size() == (CONTRACT_OLDOF(this)->size() + 1) ); // Old value. }) (body) ({ vector_.push_back(element); }) ) private: std::vector<T> vector_; }; Major changes: 1) Removed use of self, variable.now, and variable.old in writing contracts. Object (this) and variables are now accessed as usual in member functions. `CONTRACT_OLDOF(variable)` is used to access old values in postconditions (users could `#define oldof(name) CONTRACT_OLDOF(name)` for convenience). 2) Added (precondition), (postcondition), and (body) to specify contracts within the function signature sequence. If no preconditions then `(precondition) ({...})` is simply omitted from the sequence (same for postconditions, body is mandatory instead). For non-void functions users can name the result argument with `(postcondition) (myresult) ({...})`. 3) Added block invariants and Eiffel-like loop variants (not shown above). 4) Added static class invariants which are always checked (also at constructors entry, destructor exit, and by static member functions -- not shown above). Regards, Lorenzo On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:28 PM, vicente.botet <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Lorenzo Caminiti" <lorcaminiti@gmail.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 6:54 AM Subject: [boost] [contract] Contract Programming Library
Hi all,
I am thinking to submit a library for Contract Programming (a.k.a. Design By Contract (TM) ) for C++.
I have drafted some of the library documentation in Boost-like format: http://dbcpp.sourceforge.net/boost/libs/contract/doc/html/
Comments?
Hi,
I find your library very interesting and except some unavoidable preprocessor ugly (), the syntax follows quite closely the C++ proposal.
Have you considered to add block invariants? Maybe you can complete the table Contract Programming Feature Comparison.
If I have understood your library require the type is CopyConstructible to manage with postconditions. Have you considered to relax this constraint?
I have taken the freedonm to add it to the Boost Libraries Under Construction https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/LibrariesUnderConstruction . Let me know if all the informations are right.
Good work, Vicente
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost