Sorry if this has already been discussed/fixed: should assumeUnique and pointsTo still belong in std.exception? I remember the module was name std.contracts but now this seems awkward...

Thanks.
Nicolas

On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 13:24:01 biozic wrote:
> Sorry if this has already been discussed/fixed: should assumeUnique and pointsTo still belong in std.exception? I remember the module was name std.contracts but now this seems awkward...

It's not like it makes any more sense for it to be in std.contracts. assumeUnique has nothing to do with contracts. But where else would it go? There really isn't a good place to put it, and moving it would break code.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 2012-01-18 17:50, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 13:24:01 biozic wrote:
>> Sorry if this has already been discussed/fixed: should assumeUnique and
>> pointsTo still belong in std.exception? I remember the module was name
>> std.contracts but now this seems awkward...
>
> It's not like it makes any more sense for it to be in std.contracts.
> assumeUnique has nothing to do with contracts. But where else would it go?
> There really isn't a good place to put it, and moving it would break code.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Perhaps something like std.util?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 18:20:14 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-01-18 17:50, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 13:24:01 biozic wrote:
> >> Sorry if this has already been discussed/fixed: should assumeUnique
> >> and
> >> pointsTo still belong in std.exception? I remember the module was name
> >> std.contracts but now this seems awkward...
> > 
> > It's not like it makes any more sense for it to be in std.contracts. assumeUnique has nothing to do with contracts. But where else would it go? There really isn't a good place to put it, and moving it would break code.
> > 
> > - Jonathan M Davis
> 
> Perhaps something like std.util?

My point is that there isn't currently a good module to put it in. We'd have to create a new module (and std.util may be a good name for it), but unless we have several functions which make sense in there, it seems kind of silly to create a new module.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 1/18/12 11:20 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-01-18 17:50, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 13:24:01 biozic wrote:
>>> Sorry if this has already been discussed/fixed: should assumeUnique and
>>> pointsTo still belong in std.exception? I remember the module was name
>>> std.contracts but now this seems awkward...
>>
>> It's not like it makes any more sense for it to be in std.contracts.
>> assumeUnique has nothing to do with contracts. But where else would it
>> go?
>> There really isn't a good place to put it, and moving it would break
>> code.
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis
>
> Perhaps something like std.util?

I think things are fine as they are.

Andrei

Le 18/01/12 17:50, Jonathan M Davis a écrit :
> On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 13:24:01 biozic wrote:
>> Sorry if this has already been discussed/fixed: should assumeUnique and
>> pointsTo still belong in std.exception? I remember the module was name
>> std.contracts but now this seems awkward...
> It's not like it makes any more sense for it to be in std.contracts.
> assumeUnique has nothing to do with contracts. But where else would it go?
> There really isn't a good place to put it, and moving it would break code.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
Maybe in object.d, along with assumeSafeAppend which alse takes care of assumptions about arrays. It would break less code there.
But it's ok where it is after all. I can cope with this little oddity.

Thanks.

On 2012-01-18 19:03, biozic wrote:
> Le 18/01/12 17:50, Jonathan M Davis a écrit :
>> On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 13:24:01 biozic wrote:
>>> Sorry if this has already been discussed/fixed: should assumeUnique and
>>> pointsTo still belong in std.exception? I remember the module was name
>>> std.contracts but now this seems awkward...
>> It's not like it makes any more sense for it to be in std.contracts.
>> assumeUnique has nothing to do with contracts. But where else would it
>> go?
>> There really isn't a good place to put it, and moving it would break
>> code.
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis
> Maybe in object.d, along with assumeSafeAppend which alse takes care of
> assumptions about arrays. It would break less code there.
> But it's ok where it is after all. I can cope with this little oddity.
>
> Thanks.

I think object.d is already crowded as it is. It should be split in several other modules and then object.d can publicly import them.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg