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

[MysticZach via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 11:04:23 UTC, Nick Treleaven wrote:
> One option to solve the out contract ambiguity and aid parsing 
> by tools is to require 'do' after out contract expressions. It 
> allows the syntax `out(expression) do {...}`, even when 
> expression is a single identifier that should be interpreted as 
> a boolean expression.

One of the main goals of this DIP is to eliminate the need for 
`body/do` in the common case. It would significantly reduce this 
DIP's value if it couldn't do that, IMO.