On Sunday, 14 May 2017 at 13:04:12 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 5/13/17 6:07 PM, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote:
On Saturday, 13 May 2017 at 18:07:57 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 13.05.2017 16:30, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote:
On Saturday, 13 May 2017 at 10:27:25 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
[...]
Hmm, I guess it depends on how you format your code.
No, it does not. This was a point about the grammar.
How would you feel about:
if(condition){ then(); }
{ otherwise(); }
I don't see any problem, in fact this is valid code even today
- both in
C++ and D.
And my case still stands - if you were to format the code like
this:
if (condition)
{
then();
}
{
otherwise();
}
then the intent would be more obvious. At least in C++ using a
plain
scope { }
is common idiom used to explicitly limit the lifetime of RAII
objects
declared
within it.
There is a huge difference. if() {} else {} is semantically
completely different than if() {} {}
Obviously. I was just referring to the fact 'if (expr) {} {}' is
already valid today and I don't think it confuses anyone with 'if
(expr) {} else {}', *if code is formatted and/or commented
properly*.
Currently, we already allow omitting body when in/out aren't
present:
void foo()
{
}
is equivalent to
void foo()
body
{
}
I think really, option 1 is both the easiest and least
disruptive. I'm OK with option 3, but it sure seems like an
unnecessary breakage.
-Steve
By making body optional and a contextual keyword there should be
no breaking changes (except for obscure code like `static assert
(!__traits(compiles, { mixin ("int body;"); }))` :D).
