Improve "Improve Contract Syntax" DIP 1009

[H. S. Teoh]

On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 03:40:17AM +0000, codephantom via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 at 22:04:10 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > There are some unsupported claims ....

Sigh.  At the time of the review, I *did* mention that it needs to be
clearer in its presentation and especially should include the rationale
for the syntax as proposed.  However, the response I got was "it's not
necessary, because it already references the previous versions of the
DIP and therefore ought to be clear already".  Well, so much for that.


> 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.

This could have been better worded.  It doesn't technically *limit*
anything, but is more of a deterrent to using contracts because doing so
with the current syntax brings quite a bit of verbosity to the code.

A lot of the arguments and reasonings happened on the forum review
thread, which *should* have been included in summary form in the final
version of the DIP.  But it didn't.  *sigh*


> (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 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.

This is uncalled for.  This DIP did go through extensive review and
discussion on the forum review threads, and actual code examples and
syntax alternatives were put forth and argued for/against.  There was
ample evidence in the form of testimonials from various D users about
the verbosity of the current cumbersome syntax, and this DIP certainly
was not the first time this issue was brought up.  Calling it mere
"assumptions" is a bit heavy-handed, given the actual precedents.

It's not entirely your fault, though, since you probably were not here
at the time, and wouldn't have been aware of said discussions.  This is
why the DIP should have included all of those discussions (in summary
form, of course), which is its only real fault here.  I did raise this
issue, but it wasn't heeded to.  The argument at the time was that
summarizing the discussions in the forum threads was unnecessary
because, supposedly, Walter and Andrei would have already seen the
discussions, and it was thought better to minimize the workload on their
part by shortening the DIP.  Well, that didn't quite go so well, did it?

Now somebody will have to go through those review threads, summarize
them, and add them to the DIP.


T

-- 
ASCII stupid question, getty stupid ANSI.