DIP 1003 Formal Review

[MysticZach via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 at 01:01:29 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
> I think there are several issues at hand, and they need to be 
> dealt with individually:
>
> 1. `body` is a very useful identifier. It would be nice to have 
> it available.
>
> 2. Contract syntax is too verbose.
>
> 3. a. Some people think code looks better with a keyword, e.g. 
> `body`, `do`, etc. distinguishing the function from the 
> contracts.
>
> 3. b. Other people think that such a keyword is unnecessarily 
> redundant and does not justify its own existence.
>
> I think the thread will be more productive if the posters 
> commit to answering just one of these issues, and reserve other 
> issues for other threads. As the DIP in question is directly 
> meant to address issue #1, it makes sense to try to solve that 
> problem and only that problem here.

I made a related DIP discussing issue 2, contract syntax is too 
verbose. The thread for discussing that one is here:

http://forum.dlang.org/post/tuzdqqpcoguatepgxupq@forum.dlang.org