DIP 1003 Formal Review

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 13.05.2017 20:26, Eugene Wissner wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 May 2017 at 18:07:57 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 13.05.2017 16:30, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 13 May 2017 at 10:27:25 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>>> On 12.05.2017 18:17, Mike Parker wrote:
>>>>> The first stage of the formal review for DIP 1003 [1], "Remove body
>>>>> as a
>>>>> Keyword", is now underway. From now until 11:59 PM ET on May 26
>>>>> (3:59 AM
>>>>> GMT on May 27), the community has the opportunity to provide
>>>>> last-minute
>>>>> feedback. If you missed the preliminary review [2], this is your
>>>>> chance
>>>>> to provide input.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the end of the feedback period, I will submit the DIP to Walter and
>>>>> Andrei for their final decision. Thanks in advance to those of you who
>>>>> participate.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/fbb797f61ac92300eda1d63202157cd2a30ba555/DIPs/DIP1003.md
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [2] http://forum.dlang.org/thread/qgxvrbxrvkxtimzvnetu@forum.dlang.org
>>>>
>>>> Option 1 is good: There is nothing wrong with the current syntax. [1]
>>>>
>>>> Option 2 is bad: It's the function body, not the function.
>>>>
>>>> Option 3 is ugly: There is no precedent for '...{}{}' belonging to the
>>>> same declaration or statement.
>>>
>>> Hmm, I guess it depends on how you format your code.
>>
>> No, it does not. This was a point about the grammar.
>>
>> How would you feel about:
>>
>> if(condition){ then(); }
>> { otherwise(); }
>
> It isn't the same.
> ...

It does not need to be "the same", and I didn't claim it was "the same".
I'm just trying to illustrate why it does not fit into the D grammar. 
There is no technical point here. "Ugly" does not mean "unreadable" or 
"broken". It just means it is bad taste. YMMV.