DIP 1003 Formal Review

MysticZach via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Wed May 17 02:53:49 PDT 2017


On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 at 08:03:13 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> * Is it a good idea to remove body's status as a reserved 
> keyword?
>
> * If so, which option is best?
>   1) Make it contextual
>   2) Replace it with another keyword (`function` was suggested 
> in the DIP, `do` in this thread).
>   3) A three-stage process of removal: make it optional, then 
> deprecate it, then remove it completely (meaning, no keyword, 
> reserved or contextual, is required for the function body in a 
> contract).

Option 4) Keep `body`, but make it both contextual *and* 
optional. It becomes usable as an identifier, and those who think 
it's unnecessary are appeased. The downside is that different 
programmers will include it or not, based on arbitrary 
preferences.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list