On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 at 17:17:32 UTC, default0 wrote:
On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 at 17:14:04 UTC, Matthias Klumpp
wrote:
On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 at 16:57:42 UTC, Rory McGuire
wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 5:32 PM, angel via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 at 02:11:14 UTC, Meta wrote:
[...]
Really, why do we need a _body_ ?
We have pre-condition and post-condition (in and out),
everything else is
a body.
It is simply inconsistent - a regular function with no in
and out blocks
has no body block. Now one adds a pre-condition (and / or
post-condition) -
whoop - one needs to wrap the whole function body ... well
in a body
expression.
Recently I've had to use scope_ a lot more often than body_
but reserved keywords are really annoying, so the less we
have the better :D
Agreed - I have exactly the same problem with "version", which
is also really common for, well, to hold a version number of a
component. Body is annoying too.
But, can keywords actually sanely be removed from the language
without breaking the world?
To answer the question: if you can make them contextual
keywords instead of keywords, then yes. Naturally that will
increase complexity for correct syntax highlighting and similar
things one may want to do to D code.
I know that Walter is against contextual keywords. We had a long
discussion on this about attributes like nogc. I made a wiki
trying to explain the reasoning behind it:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Language_Designs_Explained#Why_don.27t_we_create_a_special_rule_in_the_syntax_to_handle_non-keyword_function_attributes_without_an_.27.40.27_character.3F
In my opinion, having to write "body_" instead of "body" is a
minor annoyance, but just minor. I'm not sold that contextual
keywords are bad, but if they are, then this "keyword" problem is
hard to solve, and the current solution isn't so bad. Also,
there's alot of other important things to be done with D, I don't
think this one is very high on the list.
