DIP 1009--Improve Contract Usability--Preliminary Review Round 1

[jmh530 via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 22 June 2017 at 22:28:14 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>
>> But we're a little off topic, as we both agree that the above 
>> solution to the double parens isn't viable, right?
>
> I think it is viable in principle, but verbose and not really 
> in line with the existing out contract syntax.

Yeah.