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

[Mark via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 24 June 2017 at 02:31:09 UTC, Solomon E wrote:
> I think my proposal to add another use of semicolon in 
> parentheses, like `foreach` or `for` but not the same as 
> either, was needlessly complicated.
>
> in (a)
> out (result) (a)
>
> as syntax sugar where each (a) lowers to
> {assert(a);}
> and in future can lower to something else, to renovate contract 
> implementation
>
> That's so much easier, in every way.

Another option is to allow giving a name to a function's return 
value in its signature, so something like:

         int result myFunc(Args...)(Args args)
	if (Args.length > 1)
	in (args[0] > 0)
	out (result > 10);

This is the approach taken by Dafny, which was mentioned earlier 
in the thread. Can't say I like it.