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

[Moritz Maxeiner via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 16:23:53 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
> void foo()
> {
>    int bar(Args...)(Args args)
>       if (Args.length > 2)
>       in (args[0] != 0)
>       in (args[1] > 1)
>       out /*whoops, forgot `( )`*/(result) { ... }
>
>    do { ... }
>    while (true); // Error: while statement cannot contain just 
> `;`
> }
>
> Honestly this doesn't seem like a big deal, as I'd imagine it'd 
> be hard not to notice that code like this wasn't working as 
> expected. And also extremely rare. So I'm still in favor.

I see. Well, I would only see that as an issue if it would 
compile and then generate code that differs from what one 
intended. But since it errors out, I don't see a problem, either, 
though it would be best to enhance that error message to give a 
hint that the programmer may have triggered that ambiguous case 
by accident. Something like "Did you mean `out() (result)`?"