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

[Patrick Schluter via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 at 19:45:20 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
> On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 at 19:30:27 UTC, pineapple wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 at 19:02:02 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
>>> 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. a.`def`()
>>>
>>> D context free grammar allow fast highlighting. I understand 
>>> that people who write scripts think that it won't change 
>>> anything...but it's not the reality. D is a system 
>>> programming language, people who use D can deal with code 
>>> base > 60 Kloc. And we don't want to see such a change 
>>> because you can't use "body" in your student project.
>>
>> In general I don't think this is a problem, but `body` is an 
>> unconventional term to have as a keyword. The other keywords 
>> that are used for function contracts (`in` and `out`) are also 
>> used in other places - perhaps `body` could be deprecated and 
>> eventually removed in favor of using another keyword instead? 
>> Either another, different keyword that is less likely to 
>> collide with common attributes of user types, or an existing 
>> keyword not meaningful in the same context.
>>
>> There may also be a case for making `body` implicit - e.g.
>>
>>     void func() in{
>>         //
>>     }out{
>>         //
>>     }body{
>>         //
>>     }
>>
>> Would become
>>
>>     void func() in{
>>         //
>>     }out{
>>         //
>>     }{
>>         //
>>     }
>>
>> I don't think this is of critical importance, but dealing with 
>> this somehow would definitely be a step in the right direction.
>
> Sorry Sophie, but do you really think that's consistent to have
>
> in{}
> out{}
> {}
>
> so the actual body without keyword ?
> In this case let's drop completely the contracts...you can put 
> them in the body, at the beg or at the end...The syntax will be 
> less sane but the 4 guys who need "body" as identifier will be 
> happy...

Sorry, I find the actual body without body keyword much more 
natural (i.e. intuitive) than having the body requiring it only 
when there are contracts. It would be even consistent with the 
template syntax where 1 parenthesis pair is runtime parameter and 
when there are 2 pairs template+runtime. The genious idea of D 
was to find that template parameter didn't require the 
abomination of alternate parenthesis < >. In the same vein, I'm 
sure that the body keyword is superfluous as the contract 
statements are unambiguously marked. That body keyword is so 
"un-D-ic" as it gets.