Subject: Re: [boost] [contract] Contract Programming Library
From: Thomas Klimpel (Thomas.Klimpel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-05 12:56:12
I like what I've seen so far. I also like the new name.
How about my interest in such a DbC library, and would I use it? I would be interested to see how DbC can be done in C++, and how it will feel. On the other hand, I "know" that I will not use DbC for "real" projects, even so I completely acknowledge the benefits it has with respect to documentation and testing. This is because testing is too important to focus on a single "random" aspect. The test requirements of different projects are so different that in principle testing should start with an investigation of the test requirements of the individual project. I fear that DbC would give a false sense of security with respect to testing. I have less problems with the documentation part of DbC, especially since it avoids the "obsolete" problem that typically plagues documentation.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk