DIP 1003 Formal Review

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 16.05.2017 05:44, MysticZach wrote:
> ...

With your proposal, this syntax would already be taken for a function 
with an empty implementation.

> Also, does a final function with contracts, but no body, make any sense?
> What's the use case?
> ...

di files.

> Even if there were some use case for it, I can think of two solutions.
> One is to keep and require the current syntax for an interface function
> without a body. This is the natural way to install contracts anyway, for
> a function with no body.
>
> The other solution is to recommend the addition of an empty statement,
> for an empty final function, e.g.:
>
> // final
> int fun() {
>   in assert(...);
>   {}
> }
>
> Considering what Jonathan said about how he never uses contracts because
> they're so bulky, might it not be worth it to solve the interface
> problem in either of the above two ways?

No. Contracts are not part of the function body, they are part of the 
function signature. That's the point.