DIP 1003 Formal Review

[MysticZach via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 at 03:44:54 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
> It seems to me that the compiler could detect a presence or 
> lack of a body simply by the presence or absence of any 
> statement after the contracts, i.e.,
>
> interface D {
>   // fun is implicitly overridable here
>   int fun() {
>     in assert(...);
>   }
> }
>
> Also, does a final function with contracts, but no body, make 
> any sense? What's the use case?
>
> Even if there were some use case for it, I can think of two 
> solutions. One is to keep and require the current syntax for an 
> interface function without a body. This is the natural way to 
> install contracts anyway, for a function with no body.
>
> The other solution is to recommend the addition of an empty 
> statement, for an empty final function, e.g.:
>
> // final
> int fun() {
>   in assert(...);
>   {}
> }
>
> Considering what Jonathan said about how he never uses 
> contracts because they're so bulky, might it not be worth it to 
> solve the interface problem in either of the above two ways?

I should have said *three* ways, because it's quite possible to 
conclude that there will never be a use case for a final function 
in an interface to have contracts, but no body, and therefore 
assume that contracts plus a lack of statements --> an 
overridable function.