Is "design by contract implemented? I tried it with the following results:

// contr.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include <cassert>

using namespace std;  // just in case.
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
    __in
    {
         assert(argc == 3);
    }
    __body
    {
         std::cout<< "argv[1] == " << argv[1] << ", argv[2] == " << argv[2]
<< '\n';
    }
    return 1;
}

dmc contr -I\dm\stlport\stlport
    {
    ^
contr.cpp(9) : Error: undefined identifier '__stl_in'
    __body
         ^
contr.cpp(12) : Error: '=', ';' or ',' expected
    return 1;
         ^
contr.cpp(16) : Error: '=', ';' or ',' expected
}
^
contr.cpp(17) : Error: identifier or '( declarator )' expected
--- errorlevel 1

It is implemented. Unfortunately, stl uses __in and __out as variable names, which conflict with the keywords, so they are #defined to be __stl_in and __stl_out. You can #undef __in and #undef __out after #including the stlport files.

"Jim Jennings" <jwjenn@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:b5q3ih$1vmd$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Is "design by contract implemented? I tried it with the following results:
>
> // contr.cpp
> #include <iostream>
> #include <cassert>
>
> using namespace std;  // just in case.
> int main(int argc, char* argv[])
> {
>     __in
>     {
>          assert(argc == 3);
>     }
>     __body
>     {
>          std::cout<< "argv[1] == " << argv[1] << ", argv[2] == " <<
argv[2]
> << '\n';
>     }
>     return 1;
> }
>
> dmc contr -I\dm\stlport\stlport
>     {
>     ^
> contr.cpp(9) : Error: undefined identifier '__stl_in'
>     __body
>          ^
> contr.cpp(12) : Error: '=', ';' or ',' expected
>     return 1;
>          ^
> contr.cpp(16) : Error: '=', ';' or ',' expected
> }
> ^
> contr.cpp(17) : Error: identifier or '( declarator )' expected
> --- errorlevel 1
>
>
>

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:b5q6hb$2211$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> It is implemented. Unfortunately, stl uses __in and __out as variable
names,
> which conflict with the keywords, so they are #defined to be __stl_in and __stl_out. You can #undef __in and #undef __out after #including the
stlport
> files.
>
> "Jim Jennings" <jwjenn@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:b5q3ih$1vmd$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Is "design by contract implemented?

Now I get this: (DBC is low priority, It looked simpler than all the "try
... catch" bloat)

// contr.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include <cassert>
#undef __in
#undef __out
using namespace std;  // just in case.
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
    __in
    {
         assert(argc == 3);
    }
    __body
    {
         std::cout<< "argv[1] == " << argv[1]
            << ", argv[2] == " << argv[2] << '\n';
    }
    return 1;
}

dmc contr -I\dm\stlport\stlport
    __in
       ^
contr.cpp(9) : Error: '=', ';' or ',' expected
    __body
         ^
contr.cpp(13) : Error: '=', ';' or ',' expected
    }
    ^
contr.cpp(17) : Error: identifier or '( declarator )' expected
    return 1;
         ^
contr.cpp(18) : Error: '=', ';' or ',' expected
}
^
contr.cpp(19) : Error: identifier or '( declarator )' expected
Fatal error: too many errors
--- errorlevel 1

Right syntax is:

----------------------------------
#include <iostream>
#include <cassert>
#undef __in
#undef __out

using namespace std;  // just in case.

int main(int argc, char* argv[])
__in
{
     assert(argc == 3);
}
__body
{
 std::cout<< "argv[1] == " << argv[1]
    << ", argv[2] == " << argv[2] << '\n';
 return 1;
}
----------------------------------------------
Note that __in, __out and __body sections follow right after function header
(not in {} braces).

And mention that you should specify -D switch (sc -D dbc.cpp). For me it
doesn't work with STL (linker issues errors about unresolved names).

Nic Tiger.

"Jim Jennings" <jwjenn@mindspring.com> ÓÏÏÂÝÉÌ/ÓÏÏÂÝÉÌÁ × ÎÏ×ÏÓÔÑÈ ÓÌÅÄÕÀÝÅÅ: news:b5q96h$23sl$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:b5q6hb$2211$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > It is implemented. Unfortunately, stl uses __in and __out as variable
> names,
> > which conflict with the keywords, so they are #defined to be __stl_in
and
> > __stl_out. You can #undef __in and #undef __out after #including the
> stlport
> > files.
> >
> > "Jim Jennings" <jwjenn@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:b5q3ih$1vmd$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > Is "design by contract implemented?
>
> Now I get this: (DBC is low priority, It looked simpler than all the "try
> ... catch" bloat)
>
> // contr.cpp
> #include <iostream>
> #include <cassert>
> #undef __in
> #undef __out
> using namespace std;  // just in case.
> int main(int argc, char* argv[])
> {
>     __in
>     {
>          assert(argc == 3);
>     }
>     __body
>     {
>          std::cout<< "argv[1] == " << argv[1]
>             << ", argv[2] == " << argv[2] << '\n';
>     }
>     return 1;
> }
>
> dmc contr -I\dm\stlport\stlport
>     __in
>        ^
> contr.cpp(9) : Error: '=', ';' or ',' expected
>     __body
>          ^
> contr.cpp(13) : Error: '=', ';' or ',' expected
>     }
>     ^
> contr.cpp(17) : Error: identifier or '( declarator )' expected
>     return 1;
>          ^
> contr.cpp(18) : Error: '=', ';' or ',' expected
> }
> ^
> contr.cpp(19) : Error: identifier or '( declarator )' expected
> Fatal error: too many errors
> --- errorlevel 1
>
>
>
>

Rewrite the function body as:

int main(int argc, char* argv[])
__in
{
         assert(argc == 3);
}
__body
{
         std::cout<< "argv[1] == " << argv[1]
            << ", argv[2] == " << argv[2] << '\n';
     return 1;
}


"Jim Jennings" <jwjenn@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:b5q96h$23sl$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:b5q6hb$2211$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > It is implemented. Unfortunately, stl uses __in and __out as variable
> names,
> > which conflict with the keywords, so they are #defined to be __stl_in
and
> > __stl_out. You can #undef __in and #undef __out after #including the
> stlport
> > files.
> >
> > "Jim Jennings" <jwjenn@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:b5q3ih$1vmd$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > Is "design by contract implemented?
>
> Now I get this: (DBC is low priority, It looked simpler than all the "try
> ... catch" bloat)
>
> // contr.cpp
> #include <iostream>
> #include <cassert>
> #undef __in
> #undef __out
> using namespace std;  // just in case.
> int main(int argc, char* argv[])
> {
>     __in
>     {
>          assert(argc == 3);
>     }
>     __body
>     {
>          std::cout<< "argv[1] == " << argv[1]
>             << ", argv[2] == " << argv[2] << '\n';
>     }
>     return 1;
> }
>
> dmc contr -I\dm\stlport\stlport
>     __in
>        ^
> contr.cpp(9) : Error: '=', ';' or ',' expected
>     __body
>          ^
> contr.cpp(13) : Error: '=', ';' or ',' expected
>     }
>     ^
> contr.cpp(17) : Error: identifier or '( declarator )' expected
>     return 1;
>          ^
> contr.cpp(18) : Error: '=', ';' or ',' expected
> }
> ^
> contr.cpp(19) : Error: identifier or '( declarator )' expected
> Fatal error: too many errors
> --- errorlevel 1
>
>
>
>

Thank you, Walter and Nic, It works now.
Jim J.
P.S. I am positive that I tried that, and it complained about not having a
closing brace. I probably put a left brace in instead of a right brace.
careless!

"Nic Tiger" <nictiger@progtech.ru> wrote in message news:b5qf9c$28g6$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Right syntax is:
>
> ----------------------------------
> #include <iostream>
> #include <cassert>
> #undef __in
> #undef __out
>
> using namespace std;  // just in case.
>
> int main(int argc, char* argv[])
> __in
> {
>      assert(argc == 3);
> }
> __body
> {
>  std::cout<< "argv[1] == " << argv[1]
>     << ", argv[2] == " << argv[2] << '\n';
>  return 1;
> }
> ----------------------------------------------
> Note that __in, __out and __body sections follow right after function
header
> (not in {} braces).
>
> And mention that you should specify -D switch (sc -D dbc.cpp). For me it
> doesn't work with STL (linker issues errors about unresolved names).
>
> Nic Tiger.
>
> "Jim Jennings" <jwjenn@mindspring.com> ÓÏÏÂÝÉÌ/ÓÏÏÂÝÉÌÁ × ÎÏ×ÏÓÔÑÈ ÓÌÅÄÕÀÝÅÅ: news:b5q96h$23sl$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
> > "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:b5q6hb$2211$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > It is implemented. Unfortunately, stl uses __in and __out as variable
> > names,
> > > which conflict with the keywords, so they are #defined to be __stl_in
> and
> > > __stl_out. You can #undef __in and #undef __out after #including the
> > stlport
> > > files.
> > >
> > > "Jim Jennings" <jwjenn@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:b5q3ih$1vmd$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > > Is "design by contract implemented?
> >
> > Now I get this: (DBC is low priority, It looked simpler than all the
"try
> > ... catch" bloat)
> >
> > // contr.cpp
> > #include <iostream>
> > #include <cassert>
> > #undef __in
> > #undef __out
> > using namespace std;  // just in case.
> > int main(int argc, char* argv[])
> > {
> >     __in
> >     {
> >          assert(argc == 3);
> >     }
> >     __body
> >     {
> >          std::cout<< "argv[1] == " << argv[1]
> >             << ", argv[2] == " << argv[2] << '\n';
> >     }
> >     return 1;
> > }
> >
> > dmc contr -I\dm\stlport\stlport
> >     __in
> >        ^
> > contr.cpp(9) : Error: '=', ';' or ',' expected
> >     __body
> >          ^
> > contr.cpp(13) : Error: '=', ';' or ',' expected
> >     }
> >     ^
> > contr.cpp(17) : Error: identifier or '( declarator )' expected
> >     return 1;
> >          ^
> > contr.cpp(18) : Error: '=', ';' or ',' expected
> > }
> > ^
> > contr.cpp(19) : Error: identifier or '( declarator )' expected
> > Fatal error: too many errors
> > --- errorlevel 1
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>