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

[Olivier FAURE via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 at 09:53:02 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 at 07:58:13 UTC, Olivier FAURE wrote:
>> 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.
>
> We weren't speaking of rejected proposals, but of previously 
> reviewed drafts. Rejected proposals already include a summary 
> of why they were rejected. You can a list of all DIPs submitted 
> under the current process, including links and their current 
> status, at:
>
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/README.md

I... think you misunderstood me? I shouldn't have used the word 
'proposals', I should have said 'suggestions'.

What I meant was "I think it would be better for the current 
version of DIP 1009 to include a 'Rejected alternative syntaxes' 
that would include a summary of the previously discussed 
suggestions for improving contract readability."

MysticZach argues that such a section would be pointless since 
the language authors read the previous version of DIP 1009, but I 
still think adding it would be a good idea (for posterity and to 
streamline discussions in this thread).