Aditya Bhargava

I like `define_contracts` too, seems like an easy way to put Contracts in a hidden namespace. I don't like the idea of eval-ing strings though.

I like @waterlink's idea of `include Contracts::Core`. Maybe we could create an alias for the contracts class, so you can write a contract like this: ``` ruby Contract C::Num, C::Num...

Doing 4th of July stuff here...will read over this after the weekend

Sorry for my late response! I like the roadmap laid out by @waterlink here: https://github.com/egonSchiele/contracts.ruby/issues/157#issuecomment-111739067 `include Contracts::Core` vs `Contracts.activate`: we will be adding some extra cognitive overhead with `.activate` since...

Hmm, this is really weird. I'll take a look.

Nope, I haven't had a chance to take a look. Are you having the same issue?

A bit late, but I like the idea of having a deprecation warning for top-level contracts. It's pretty easy to check if the user is using irb: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2226979/how-can-a-ruby-script-detect-that-it-is-running-in-irb

Thank you for finding these corner cases!

top-level inclusion of Contracts will be deprecated soon: https://github.com/egonSchiele/contracts.ruby/issues/81

I can add this to an FAQ section when I break up the documentation.