Assertions in design by contract: Difference between revisions
→{{header|Fortran}}
Line 96:
As written, the scheme involves an unconditional invocation of a subroutine with parameters. That overhead would be reduced by something like <lang Fortran> IF (SSQ.LT.0) CALL CROAK("Sum of squares can't be negative.") !Perhaps two passes should be used.</lang>
Some compilers allowed a D in column one to signify that this was a debugging statement, and a compiler option could specify that all such statements were to be treated as comments and not compiled. Probably not a good idea for statements performing checks. The code that your users run should be the same code that you have tested... A variation on this theme involves such debugging output being written to a file, then after modifying and recompiling, the new version's execution proceeds only while it produces the same debugging output. The reference output could be considered a (voluminous) contract, but for this to work a special testing environment is required and is not at all a Fortran standard.
=={{header|Go}}==
| |||