DIP 1003 Formal Review

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d]

On 5/13/17 6:07 PM, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] 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(); }
>
> I don't see any problem, in fact this is valid code even today - both in
> C++ and D.
> And my case still stands - if you were to format the code like this:
>
> if (condition)
> {
>     then();
> }
>
> {
>     otherwise();
> }
>
> then the intent would be more obvious. At least in C++ using a plain
> scope { }
> is common idiom used to explicitly limit the lifetime of RAII objects
> declared
> within it.

There is a huge difference. if() {} else {} is semantically completely 
different than if() {} {}

Currently, we already allow omitting body when in/out aren't present:

void foo()
{
}

is equivalent to

void foo()
body
{
}

I think really, option 1 is both the easiest and least disruptive. I'm 
OK with option 3, but it sure seems like an unnecessary breakage.

-Steve