• Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= (43/43) Jun 12 2021 One of the things I don't like about C++ is that signatures often

Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:

One of the things I don't like about C++ is that signatures often 
end up being complex. Sadly, D2's signatures are even more 
complex (D1 had an edge on C++ there).

Why not simply move "linting" information to a separate line and 
keep the "first line" of function definitions clean.

E.g. to require the return value, a, b to have the same lifetime:
```
int myfunc(A a, ref T c)
lifetime(return,c.x)
{
   body
}
```

Or introduce a new operator £ that takes the lifetime of an 
object, which I think is even better:

```
int myfunc(A a, B b, ref T c)
require(£return==£a.x)
{
   body
}
```

This would also allow specifying destruction order
```
require(£b < £a.x)
```

Or are there things that needs to be expressed about life times 
that cannot work with such a scheme?

I also think a scheme like this should allow library authors to 
give names to individual requirements and invariants.

That would allow better error messages, maybe even custom error 
handlers, e.g.:

```
…
invariant outofbounds { tests }
…
require lifetimes (…)
…
__interpret_compilation_error outofbounds (context) {
    if (context.xyz such and such)
    return "This failed because..."
}

```