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

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 04:15:38PM -0400, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
> You can always still do in and out block syntax. Or is this DIP
> proposing to do away with that? I didn't see any mention of
> deprecating current syntax.
> 
> I view this improvement like short lambda syntax. When your lambda is
> one expression, so much easier and convenient to use the => form. But
> you can always reach for the multi-statement form if needed.
[...]

Yes, this is also my understanding: the current syntax will be retained
(hence, no breakage of current code), but a new syntax better suited for
short contracts will be introduced. I think this is the right way to go.


T

-- 
It won't be covered in the book. The source code has to be useful for something, after all. -- Larry Wall