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

[Olivier FAURE via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 22 July 2017 at 04:48:34 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
> On Friday, 21 July 2017 at 19:36:08 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> In short, I feel that a more substantial discussion of how we 
>> arrived at the current form of the proposal is important so 
>> that Walter & Andrei can have the adequate context to 
>> appreciate the proposed syntax changes, and not feel like this 
>> is just one possibility out of many others that haven't been 
>> adequately considered.
>
> I think we have to assume they've been reading the prior 
> threads. If they have specific questions or concerns, then we 
> have to hope they'll express them here, rather than just reject 
> the proposal. I'll put you in the author line as a co-author if 
> you want, as this _is_ essentially your proposal.

I feel like making a list of alternative proposals and why they 
were rejected would still be a good idea, both to improve the 
quality of the debate in this thread (people are proposing 
alternative syntaxes that should be addressed in the DIP), and 
for posterity.