DIP 1009--Improve Contract Usability--Preliminary Review Round 2 Begins

[MysticZach via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 21 July 2017 at 19:36:08 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> In short, I feel that a more substantial discussion of how we 
> arrived at the current form of the proposal is important so 
> that Walter & Andrei can have the adequate context to 
> appreciate the proposed syntax changes, and not feel like this 
> is just one possibility out of many others that haven't been 
> adequately considered.

I think we have to assume they've been reading the prior threads. 
If they have specific questions or concerns, then we have to hope 
they'll express them here, rather than just reject the proposal. 
I'll put you in the author line as a co-author if you want, as 
this _is_ essentially your proposal.

> And there should be at least one example of a body-less 
> function declaration with contracts, just to see what it looks 
> like in that case.

Right now, such declarations are only legal in interfaces. That 
might change if the implementation changes. Here's how one would 
look with the new syntax:

interface I {
    void fun(int a) in(a);
}