On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 16:44:24 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 11:04:23 UTC, Nick Treleaven wrote:
One option to solve the out contract ambiguity and aid parsing
by tools is to require 'do' after out contract expressions. It
allows the syntax `out(expression) do {...}`, even when
expression is a single identifier that should be interpreted
as a boolean expression.
One of the main goals of this DIP is to eliminate the need for
`body/do` in the common case. It would significantly reduce
this DIP's value if it couldn't do that, IMO.
This*1000.
Having a keyword delimit the end of an optional is both redundant
and inconsistent with virtually every other rule in the D grammar
(except old contract syntax). It's one of the (two) major reasons
why I don't use the original contract syntax.
