"body" keyword is unnecessary

[Tony]

On Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 11:02:37 UTC, bauss wrote:

>
> They wouldn't need to know. Obviously they know its purpose and 
> how it works if they have it in their source code, if they 
> don't have it in their source code and they look at contracts, 
> then they will be fine either way as it's not a required 
> keyword anymore and thus doesn't require documentation, since 
> you can achieve the same semantics without using the keyword.
>
> The keyword is completely irrelevant unless you're maintaining 
> old source codes, in which case you should already be aware of 
> how it functions and if you aren't then a little research won't 
> hurt.

I may have misunderstood you. I assumed you were saying that the 
"do" keyword was optional in the syntax. If not, given the fact 
that "body" may be required on the compiler that someone is 
currently using and the documentation only mentions "do", the 
keyword seems relevant to me.