On 16.05.2017 17:47, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
...
And having to
have body (or function whatever other keyword we might put there) just makes
contracts that much more verbose
That's seriously exaggerated.
- as well as being inconsistent with how
functions bodies are declared when there are no contracts.
Honestly, as nice as it would be to get the body keyword back as an
identifier, I care _way_ more about not having a redundant keyword for the
function body.
It's not redundant. Removing it makes the code look bad. There is a
reason why Walter added it to the language.
I'd be all for removing it from contracts even if we never
got it back as an identifier. I've always found needing to add body to be
very annoying, and I frequently forget it,
Impossible. You "almost never use" contracts.
because it's not there normally.
It's always there if you write a function with contracts.
It's just making contracts longer without adding extra information, and
contracts are _way_ too verbose even without the extra keyword there, let
alone with it.
I'm not against adding less verbose options, but just removing 'body' is
not a good way to do it. All that does is to go from verbose to verbose
and ugly. That does not justify a change that breaks all D code that
uses contracts.
IMHO, if we remove body as a keyword but replace it with something else in
contracts, we've lost out on a big opportunity for some language cleanup.
- Jonathan M Davis
I disagree that changing contract syntax in the way you suggest
constitutes a cleanup. I agree that changing 'body' to 'function' is a
similarly bad option though.
