DIP 1003 Formal Review

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 18 May 2017 at 12:56:31 UTC, Meta wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 May 2017 at 03:59:49 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
>> On Thursday, 18 May 2017 at 02:13:52 UTC, Meta wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 at 11:46:07 UTC, Meta wrote:
>>>> I'll add this option to the DIP.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/65
>>
>> I think ( 
>> http://forum.dlang.org/post/kybywnscisxpebezwyvk@forum.dlang.org ) represents yet another distinct option. i.e. continue to allow `body`, but make it optional, that is, you can simply omit it if you want, while also allowing it as an identifier.
>
> This is pretty much the same as option 2. The short-term 
> contextual part is covered by Walter's suggestion.

No it's not. What MysticZach suggests, and what I suggested even 
earlier [0] is to make 'body' contextual and optional which is 
very different than replacing it with another keyword. The main 
difference is that it would make code that uses contracts cleaner 
and there would be no breakage. In contrast, deprecating 'body' 
is a breaking change.

IMO, option 2 and variations of it are *the worst* way forward.

[0]: 
http://forum.dlang.org/post/pmldhzgcpuoydllfrbei@forum.dlang.org