On 5/17/17 8:47 AM, Patrick Schluter wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 at 19:25:25 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
1) Consistency with functions without contracts.
This only applies to the "naked" version which has ugly }{ in it. The
other options people are asking about are replacing body with a
keyword, which I think you agree would be bad for consistency?
I don't understand why this would be uglier than )( used in templates.
Since imo it is one of the highlights of D to have "discovered" that one
didn't need the super-ugly <> template pars of other languages, as the
relative position in the code made it absolutely unambiguous which is
which.
Sure, it could be something we get used to.
However, since naked {} are generally treated as a new scope and valid
in many places, it looks strange.
The same is true for function bodies. It is completely unambiguous where
it starts and ends. As for }{, it would be rare anyway, as it would
generally be written vertically
out {
assert(whatever);
}
{
....
}
or even
out { assert(whatever);}
{
...
}
This has been hashed out in this thread quite a bit. It's a perception
thing, not really a technical problem. And my perception is that it's
ugly :)
I think in practice, it would turn out probably fine.
-Steve
