DIP 1009 (Add Expression-Based Contract Syntax) Accepted

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2018-04-06 14:26, Mike Parker wrote:
> Congratulations to Zach Tollen and everyone who worked on DIP 1009. It 
> took a painful amount of time to get it through the process, but it had 
> finally come out of the other side with an approval. The proposal itself 
> was approved early on, but it needed quite a bit of revision to get to 
> an acceptable final draft. The DIP in its final form:
> 
> 
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1009.md
> 
> Though I will not retroactively apply review summaries to all previously 
> approved DIPs, I will do so with those currently working through the 
> process. I've started with this one. Note that I kept the 'Preliminary 
> Review' name instead of using the new 'Community Review' so that it 
> would match the review thread title.
> 
> I would like to remind everyone that DIP 1013, "The Deprecation 
> Process", is currently under Community Review, with very little feedback 
> so far. I encourage everyone to take a look at it and speak up if any 
> flaws or potential enhancements are seen.
> 
> https://forum.dlang.org/thread/rxlbdijkbhanwvbksuej@forum.dlang.org

What's the philosophy around accepted DIPs containing multiple 
suggestions/alternatives. For example, this DIP mentions three 
alternatives for the "out" syntax [1], it's not crystal clear which one 
was actually accepted.

When a DIP is accepted and it contains multiple alternatives, can we 
move the non-accepted alternatives to a separate section, use a strike 
through font style or similar?

[1] 
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1009.md#new-out-syntax

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg