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

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 28.07.2017 13:04, Nick Treleaven wrote:
> On Friday, 21 July 2017 at 13:51:05 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> DIP 1009 is titled "Improve Contract Usability".
>>
>> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1009.md
> 
> I think the proposed in/out expression contracts should require pure 
> expressions. In the rare case that impurity is required, the old syntax 
> can be used. This makes the proposal more useful. Otherwise, the 
> expression would have to be awkwardly wrapped in `()pure => expr` code 
> to enforce this (without requiring purity of function body too). It's 
> too late to require purity for existing contract syntax, but we have an 
> opportunity here. ...

No, please. Even the fact that 'out' implicitly applies 'const' is 
annoying enough, and there is absolutely no good reason to make the two 
notations behave differently.