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

[jmh530 via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 23 June 2017 at 13:00:30 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
>
> The out contract looks pretty good actually. The in contract, 
> not as good. That looks like a comma expression. I'd rather see 
> this be:
>
>      in(x > 0)
>      in(y > 0)
>
> or
>
>      in(x > 0 && y > 0)
>
> In this case, we have something I think I would support.
>
> -Steve

I agree.