DIP 1009--Improve Contract Usability--Preliminary Review Round 2 Begins

[Moritz Maxeiner via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 21 July 2017 at 19:19:47 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
> On Friday, 21 July 2017 at 18:55:08 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
>
>> I really like how the syntax turned out. My only remaining 
>> peeve is the `ContractParameters` nomenclature in the grammar 
>> section, because it implies that asserts are contracts.
>
> Maybe I should have stuck with AssertParameters. That can 
> easily be fixed.

I know this is being pedantic to an annoying degree (sorry), but 
that would just invert the implication's direction, i.e. "it 
implies that contracts are asserts". The only way I can think of 
right now to get rid of the implication would be to choose a name 
that is agnostic to either of them.