Terence Way <terry@wayforward.net> writes:
> On Wednesday, May 28, 2003, at 04:55 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
>
>> That being said, you still haven't explained *why* contracts belong
>> in docstrings (or in documentation in general). They are executable
>> code; why not treat them as such?
>>
> Okay, the whole docstring vs syntax thing, and I'm going to quote
> liberally from Bertrand Meyer's Object Oriented Software
> Construction, 1st edition, 7.9 Using Assertions.
Note: I'm *not* a fan of Eiffel-style formal pre and post conditions.
I probably wouldn't use them, personally. But as I could end up
dealing with others' code which uses such a feature if it was added, I
do have an interest. Also, I haven't read the PEP yet (I'm offline
right now).
But I disagree fairly strongly with the idea of having pre/post
conditions in docstrings. That is *not* what docstrings are for.
Docstrings are documentation, not arbitrary metadata.
How about this as a proposal? Attach pre and post conditions to a
functions as function attributes. A silly example:
def f():
pass
def pre():
assert True
f.pre = pre
def post():
assert True
f.post = post
This is a bit wordy, but entirely doable with Python as it stands and
the conditions are syntax checked at definition time, just like they
should be. If pre/post conditions turn out to be so useful that they
deserve a more concise syntax, *that's* the time to propose better
syntax. (One obvious possibility would be to allow more flexibility in
def statements, so that
def f.post():
whatever
becomes possible.)
Paul.
--
This signature intentionally left blank
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4