DIP 1003 Formal Review

[Basile B. via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 at 09:53:49 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
> 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.

The problem with this option is the IDEs. D syntax so far doesn't 
require parsing to highlight, i.e you have a token and you know 
what is it directly, and this without looking at the previous 
tokens (which is basically what parsing does, detect token 
patterns).