My body is ugly [Re: Contextualizing keywords]

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:47:49 -0400, Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:

> Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
>> Don wrote:
>>
>>> It would be strange to put outer function statements before the
>>> precondition, but that's true of any inner function.
>>  I don't see it as an inner function, but as a part of the public  
>> interface.
>> It's an enforceable documentation of the function.
>
> I agree, except that I don't see any reason why a special inner function  
> cannot be part of the public interface. I don't think it makes any  
> difference where it is appears in the code.
> In my experience, most of the code in the precondition frequently gets  
> duplicated in the function itself. But that's secondary -- I just want  
> to get rid of 'body'.
>
> The stronger argument against the 'inner function' syntax is the case  
> when you have an interface, which naturally has no body, but still has  
> an 'in' contract. Where does the contract go?
>
> I refuse to believe that the optimal solution to that problem involves  
> the 'body' keyword.

Don't template constraints have a similar syntax, but no body keyword?   
Why can't that be the same for preconditions?

-Steve