From: Dirk Gerrits (dirk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-27 13:59:40
> Looking at your code gave me the idea that the precondition and the
> postcondition could be both implemented in the constructor and a
> destructor of some class of which there is an instance in the
> function. Then there is really no need for virtual precondition() and
Sounds like a great idea! Perhaps a technique like this one could be
PrePostCondition guard = MakePrePostCondition(&precondition,
> Only i am not sure about unwinding the stack when exceptions are thrown.
Additionally, would you want to check your postconditions when
exceptions are thrown? I think there are situations both in favor and
> >Further, is there any reason why you put the assert in pre- and
> >postcondition? Couldn't contract just as well do assert(precondition)
> >and assert(postcondition)?
> i suppose you could. i would expect that typically pre and post conditions
> would be throwing exceptions.
Ah I see. I was thinking more along the lines of this:
if (!precondition) throw PreConditionError;
if (!postcondition) throw PostConditionError;
In otherwords: making the pre- and postconditions nullary predicates
(that's probably a contradiction but I think you know what I mean ;) and
having the 'guard' do the asserting/throwing.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk