DIP 1003 (Remove body as a Keyword) Accepted!

[via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Saturday, 3 June 2017 at 20:06:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/3/2017 12:28 AM, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote:
>> Personally, making contracts less verbose and more powerful is 
>> much higher on my list
> We did discuss bouncing the DIP back with a request to revamp 
> it as a complete overhaul of the contract syntax, but decided 
> that this DIP was about resolving a simple and immediate 
> problem, and it shouldn't be held up on that basis.

Yes, keeping scope of DIP1003 was the right call. In order to for 
the process to be effective, we need to have good turnaround time.
That said, I'm glad to hear that the idea of an overhaul the 
contract syntax is on your radar. Related to that, is the need to 
formally specify what exactly is the compiler allowed to assume 
via asserts. Currently the answer is offensive​ programming [0] 
which doesn't play well with domains that require defensive​ 
programming. But that's a topic for another day and another DIP.

[0]: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_programming#Offensive_programming