On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 at 19:30:27 UTC, pineapple wrote:
On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 at 19:02:02 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 at 18:41:02 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2016-10-05 19:14, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
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?
In Ruby most keywords are not reserved words. a.`def`()
D context free grammar allow fast highlighting. I understand
that people who write scripts think that it won't change
anything...but it's not the reality. D is a system programming
language, people who use D can deal with code base > 60 Kloc.
And we don't want to see such a change because you can't use
"body" in your student project.
In general I don't think this is a problem, but `body` is an
unconventional term to have as a keyword. The other keywords
that are used for function contracts (`in` and `out`) are also
used in other places - perhaps `body` could be deprecated and
eventually removed in favor of using another keyword instead?
Either another, different keyword that is less likely to
collide with common attributes of user types, or an existing
keyword not meaningful in the same context.
There may also be a case for making `body` implicit - e.g.
void func() in{
//
}out{
//
}body{
//
}
Would become
void func() in{
//
}out{
//
}{
//
}
I don't think this is of critical importance, but dealing with
this somehow would definitely be a step in the right direction.
Sorry Sophie, but do you really think that's consistent to have
in{}
out{}
{}
so the actual body without keyword ?
In this case let's drop completely the contracts...you can put
them in the body, at the beg or at the end...The syntax will be
less sane but the 4 guys who need "body" as identifier will be
happy...
