Feature request: Optional, simplified syntax for simple contracts

[TommiT]

On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 at 06:00:49 UTC, Aleksandar Ruzicic 
wrote:
> Well, that's why I've said we don't have a statement that uses 
> comma to separate it's part. We have lists (argument list, 
> initializer list, array literals, etc) and I would keep comma 
> for separating list items.
>
> In for and foreach we use semi-colons, so I tought that using 
> semi-colon in in would be more consistent than comma.
>
> But that's just my opinion and if this feature got implemented 
> I would be happy with commas also. :)

The content inside a simplified pre/post-condition would be a 
list of runtime boolean expressions, therefore comma is a more 
logical separator than a semi-colon, which indicates a statement. 
Semi-colon would invite newbies try to write code inside 
contracts that looks like it might work but doesn't:

void fun(double x)
in (double squared = x * x; squared < 10; squared > -2)
{ }

Another list of boolean expressions:

bool[] arr = [ true, false, 0, 1, isSomething() ];

...separated by commas alright.