DIP 1009--Improve Contract Usability--Preliminary Review Round 1

[Moritz Maxeiner via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 09:53:40 UTC, meppl wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 09:27:20 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 08:15:34 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 04:16:22 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner 
>>> wrote:
>>>> int myFunc(Args...)(Args args)
>>>>   if (Args.length > 2)
>>>>   in (args[0] != 0)
>>>>   in (args[1] > 1)
>>>>   out (result => result > 0) { ... }
>
> avoiding the "anonymous scope"-extra wouldnt hurt much?
>
> int myFunc(Args...)(Args args)
>   if (Args.length > 2)
>   in (args[0] != 0)
>   in (args[1] > 1)
>   out (result => result > 0)
>   do { ... }

Adding `if (...)` should not be different from adding `in (...)` 
or `out (...)` in terms of syntax rules: it's inconsistent. If 
you want to have that `do` there, I would argue that it should 
also become required if only an `if (...)` is present, so

---
  int myFunc(Args...)(Args args)
    if (Args.length > 2)
    { ... }
---

should then become illegal and must be rewritten as

---
  int myFunc(Args...)(Args args)
    if (Args.length > 2)
    do { ... }
---

I doubt that's going to happen, though (too much code breakage), 
and I also don't like it. Simply drop the `do`.