My two cents.
It sound to be a good idea, if a missing requirement genrate a warning, rather than an assertion/exception.
Some of the things you described seems to be related more to Quality of Services, rather than Design by Contract, but I might be wrong.
The more I learn modern C++, more I realize that the best "contracts" can be usually implemented using "strong types".
I am in favour of using something similar to __boost::units__ in ROS messages, some kind of metadata attached to the topic itself that is NOT transmitted every time and is immutable.
But I am aware that this is another topic...
---
[Visit Topic](
https://discourse.ros.org/t/design-by-contract/2405/2) or reply to this email to respond.
If you do not want to receive messages from ros-users please use the unsubscribe link below. If you use the one above, you will stop all of ros-users from receiving updates.
______________________________________________________________________________
ros-users mailing list
ros-users@lists.ros.org
http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
Unsubscribe: <
http://lists.ros.org/mailman//options/ros-users>
(text/plain)