On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 13:11:10 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
[...]
My fix would be to require two sets of parentheses for the new
conditional, like so:
OutStatement:
...
// new version
out ( Identifier ) ( IfCondition )
out ( ) ( IfCondition )
This makes the grammar unambiguous and clean. And because
normally `out` contracts want to check the return value, the
last case, `out ( ) ( ... )` will be the rare one.
If I read that correctly as
---
int myFunc(Args...)(Args args)
if (Args.length > 2)
in (args[0] != 0)
in (args[1] > 1)
out (result)(result > 0) { ... }
---
then yeah, I would be happy with that, as well (and would love
for the DIP to do this instead).
If you do accidentally forget the extra set of parens on the
`out` contract, you would get "Error: `do` expected before
function body after a bracketed `out` contract" at the end of
the function.
(If, however, it a happens to be a nested function, and the
next statement in that function happens to be `do`, then the
parser will think the `do` loop is the function body... Mmmm,
is this worth worrying about??)
Could you give a specific (short) example of what you think of?
I don't see any potential for ambiguity in the following at a
quick glance, so I'm not sure I got where you think the problem
lies:
---
void foo()
{
int bar(Args...)(Args args)
if (Args.length > 2)
in (args[0] != 0)
in (args[1] > 1)
out (result)(result > 0) { ... }
do {} while (true);
}
---
