Improve "Improve Contract Syntax" DIP 1009

[codephantom]

On Thursday, 2 November 2017 at 18:40:26 UTC, bauss wrote:
> I disagree with that, because it would make the language very 
> verbose.

Personally, I think function headers are starting to become to 
verbose.

I don't believe removing the separate scaffolding that 
accompanies contracts, so that you incorporate contracts directly 
into the scaffolding of a function header is a good design choice.

There was an inital design choice to put in that scaffolding for 
contracts, and presumably it was done so for a reason. I didn't 
see that discussed in the DIP.