On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 at 18:34:06 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 5/12/17 12:17 PM, Mike Parker wrote:
The first stage of the formal review for DIP 1003 [1], "Remove
body as a
Keyword", is now underway. From now until 11:59 PM ET on May
26 (3:59 AM
GMT on May 27), the community has the opportunity to provide
last-minute
feedback. If you missed the preliminary review [2], this is
your chance
to provide input.
At the end of the feedback period, I will submit the DIP to
Walter and
Andrei for their final decision. Thanks in advance to those of
you who
participate.
[1]
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/fbb797f61ac92300eda1d63202157cd2a30ba555/DIPs/DIP1003.md
[2]
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/qgxvrbxrvkxtimzvn...@forum.dlang.org
Before we go down endlessly debating which keywords would work
best to replace body here, can someone please inform the crowd
why just having body remain as it is now, but *not* be a
keyword is unworkable?
The more I think about it, the more I think that option 1 is
the far far far superior option. Zero existing code breaks, and
we now have access to our own body symbols (and we don't even
have to go through a deprecation period). However, if there is
a missing lynch pin that shows why this cannot work, then it's
better to take it off the table now.
-Steve
1) Consistency with functions without contracts.
2) I wouldn't like to have body optional because: it introduces
an additional style guide rule: there will be people who will
omit it and people who will say: explicitely is better, always
use body.
3) Syntax highlighting: Editors that work with regex will mark
body in all contexts as a keyword.
4) I know body isn't reserved anywhere, I can use it without
thinking abot the contexts (good for new comers who may think
body is a reserved keyword if it is used as such in some
contexts).
