Improve "Improve Contract Syntax" DIP 1009

[codephantom]

On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 at 22:04:10 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:
> There are some unsupported claims ....
> Andrei

Well, I'm struggling with the 'claims' on which the DIP mounts 
its argument.

(1) That the current syntax for contract programming limits its 
usability.

(2) That the more concise syntax being proposed, is both easier 
to read and write, and will therefore increase the usage of 
contract programming.

The problem with the DIP, as I see it, is:

The evidence for claim (1) is presumably points 1,2,3 in the 
Rationale. However, there is no convincing evidence to suggest 
there really is a connection between those points and that claim.

The evidence for claim (2) is??

Claims asserted as true without justification are just 
assumptions.

DIP authours would do well too study the Toulmin method of 
argumentation.