In D1 you had to write:

	invariant
	{
		...
	}

while in D2, to disabiguate with invariant being overloaded with immutability you had to write:

	invariant()
	{
		...
	}

Now that the use of the invariant keyword in D2 has returned to its single original meaning of class invariant, is there still a reason for it to require an empty parenthesis? Should I fill a bug?

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/

在 Sun, 12 Apr 2009 20:57:28 +0800，Michel Fortin <michel.fortin@michelf.com> 写道:

> In D1 you had to write:
>
> 	invariant
> 	{
> 		...
> 	}
>
> while in D2, to disabiguate with invariant being overloaded with immutability you had to write:
>
> 	invariant()
> 	{
> 		...
> 	}
>
> Now that the use of the invariant keyword in D2 has returned to its single original meaning of class invariant, is there still a reason for it to require an empty parenthesis? Should I fill a bug?
>

It will be good if it will be the same in both D1 and D2

-- 
使用 Opera 革命性的电子邮件客户程序: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Michel Fortin <michel.fortin@michelf.com> wrote:
> In D1 you had to write:
>
>        invariant
>        {
>                ...
>        }
>
> while in D2, to disabiguate with invariant being overloaded with immutability you had to write:
>
>        invariant()
>        {
>                ...
>        }

Actually, the D1 compiler now accepts the "invariant() {}" syntax, so if you want your code to work with both D1 and D2, use that.

Whether it'll be going away, I'm not sure.  I guess Walter is the only one who knows that.

On 2009-04-12 10:29:52 -0400, Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley@gmail.com> said:

> Actually, the D1 compiler now accepts the "invariant() {}" syntax, so
> if you want your code to work with both D1 and D2, use that.

Actually, I was just converting some D1 code to D2 (with no intention of keeping it D1-compatible) and had to change a few of them, which made me wonder whether Walter has considered reversing this change to D2 now that the reason for doing it has disappered.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> Whether it'll be going away, I'm not sure.  I guess Walter is the only
> one who knows that.

I see no point to breaking invariant() again.

Michel Fortin wrote:
<snip>
> Now that the use of the invariant keyword in D2 has returned to its single original meaning of class invariant,

Where do you get that idea from???

Stewart.

On 2009-04-12 19:08:08 -0400, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998@yahoo.com> said:

> Michel Fortin wrote:
> <snip>
>> Now that the use of the invariant keyword in D2 has returned to its single original meaning of class invariant,
> 
> Where do you get that idea from???

D 2.020's changelog:

- immutable now is implemented.


I though this meant that invariant was replaced by immutable as a type modifier. Apparently, it was not: invariant can still be used as a synonym to immutable. This also makes:

	(invariant int).stringof == "immutable(int)"

So I guess I should change my initial question: is this use of invariant going to be kept indefinitely?

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/

On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 22:00:43 +0300, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>> Whether it'll be going away, I'm not sure.  I guess Walter is the only
>> one who knows that.
>
> I see no point to breaking invariant() again.

Will 'invariant' as a type modifier go away? If so, then of course the parentheses could be dropped out from the class invariant. Or, both the syntaxes ('invariant {}' and 'invariant() {}') could be supported (imho, only one syntax would be better though).

Currently the syntaxes of the class invariants and unit tests are a bit inconsistent, and I don't like it too much. :)

Michel Fortin wrote:
<snip>
> D 2.020's changelog:
> 
> - immutable now is implemented.
> 
> 
> I though this meant that invariant was replaced by immutable as a type modifier.

My first reaction was to look for documentation on what the keyword means and have no success.  And so I filed this....
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2572

> Apparently, it was not: invariant can still be used as a synonym to immutable.
<snip>

If it meant that invariant had been removed, then that's what it would've said.

Stewart.