DIP 1003 Formal Review

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 at 18:57:37 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> this ugly verbosity, but imagine how much better it would be if 
> we could write something like this instead:
>
> 	int foo(T, U)(T t, U u)
> 	if (sigConstraints!T && sigConstraints!U)
> 	in (t > 0 && u < 10)
> 	out(foo > 1 && foo < 5 )
> 	{
> 		// function body here
> 	}
>
> This is just tentative example syntax, of course.

Why not just use the terminology the rest of the world has landed 
on?

int foo(T, U)(T t, U u)
if (sigConstraints!T && sigConstraints!U)
requires(t > 0 && u < 10)
ensures(foo > 1 && foo < 5 )
{
    // function body here
}

Or is there some value in being cryptic?