Examples Wanted: Usages of "body" as a Symbol Name

[Jonathan Marler via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 at 18:41:02 UTC, Jacob Carlborg 
wrote:
> On 2016-10-05 19:14, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>
>> Agreed - I have exactly the same problem with "version", which 
>> is also
>> really common for, well, to hold a version number of a 
>> component. Body
>> is annoying too.
>>
>> But, can keywords actually sanely be removed from the language 
>> without
>> breaking the world?
>
> In Ruby most keywords are not reserved words. Example:
>
> class Foo
>   def class
>   end
> end
>
> When the compiler sees the second "class" it already knows that 
> this is a method declaration because of the "def" keyword. 
> Actually calling this method requires a receiver:
>
> class Foo
>   def class
>   end
>
>   def bar
>     class # this won't compile
>     self.class # this will work since the compiler knows that 
> is has to be a method call because of the dot
>   end
> end
>
> In Scala it's possible to wrap a keyword in backticks, this is 
> necessary to be able to call a Java method that uses a name 
> that is a keyword in Scala but not in Java:
>
> // Java
> class Foo
> {
>     void def () {}
> }
>
> // Scala
> val a = new Foo()
> a.`def`()

To remove D's current keywords and add them to the syntax would 
be quite an undertaking I think.  If someone was so inclined, 
they could take the full syntax as it exists today, and try to 
modify it so that the keywords would be removed and added to the 
applicable grammar rules.  I'd be curious to see how this would 
change the syntax rules, if it would be ALOT more complicated or 
if it only added some minor complication.  My gut says that this 
would explode in complexity, but maybe not?  You'd also have to 
make sure that the new syntax is still unambiguous, there's 
probably tools that can verify this.