DIP 1003: remove `body` as a keyword

[Sönke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d-announce]

Am 25.11.2016 um 23:28 schrieb Timon Gehr:
> On 25.11.2016 22:18, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>> Am 25.11.2016 um 12:39 schrieb Timon Gehr:
>>> On 24.11.2016 10:24, Kagamin wrote:
>>>> I see no ambiguity even if parsing is not greedy.
>>>
>>> import std.stdio;
>>> pragma(mangle,"_D2tt4mainFZ3fooUZv")
>>> void foo()in{ assert(true); }{
>>>     writeln("Hello World!");
>>> }
>>> void main(){
>>>     static extern(C) void foo()in{ assert(true); }
>>>     { foo(); }
>>> }
>>>
>>> Removing contracts, is this this code (printing "Hello World!"):
>>>
>>> import std.stdio;
>>> pragma(mangle,"_D2tt4mainFZ3fooUZv")
>>> void foo(){
>>>     writeln("Hello World!");
>>> }
>>> void main(){
>>>     static extern(C) void foo();
>>>     { foo(); }
>>> }
>>
>> Not without explicitly adding that ";".
>
> ?
>
> The point here was to illustrate what the two possible interpretations
> are in terms of code that is compatible with current D. The syntax for
> body-less function declarations with contracts proposed in pull 3611 [1]
> does not require a ';' to be present.
>
> [1] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/3611
>
> The interpretation you are complaining about is in fact the standard
> interpretation without option 3, but with contracts on function
> declarations.

Okay, *that's* the missing piece, thanks for clarifying. I somehow 
expected that function declarations would always have to end with a 
semicolon. But admittedly, even then, with my proposal to allow 
non-block statements for contracts, that would still leave this 
ambiguity for local function declarations.

The same mechanic unfortunately also makes the "do" suggestion annoying 
to implement.