Only want to say

[ddcovery]

On Monday, 11 January 2021 at 16:21:55 UTC, Meta wrote:

> ...
> I am the author of that DIP, and you are grossly 
> mis-interpreting what I'm saying there. I am not saying that 
> contract programming is not important; on the contrary, I think 
> it is very important and use D's contract programming features 
> whenever possible.
My apologies for the mis-interpreting.

> However, I seem to be in the minority in that regard in the D 
> community, and people have been complaining for 10+ years about 
> not being able to use `body` as the name for a symbol.
I understand... As long as I have seen, the own std library makes 
an intensive use of unitesting and avoids the in/out contract 
keywords (mainly, I suppose, because it is a "run-time" check 
with the obvious performance fault ).

> In that context, it does not make sense to tie up a very 
> commonly used symbol name for a relatively underused feature.
>
> As for `do`, that was not my idea; I originally proposed using 
> `function` instead of body, but Andrei opted for `do` instead.
>
> Regardless, it doesn't matter much now, as was mentioned, 
> because body is now only a keyword in the context of function 
> contracts.

Thank you very much Meta for the clarifications and the effort 
that as a community you have dedicated to me.