Re: DIP 1009--Improve Contract Usability--Formal Review

[Mark via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 12:26:43 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
The first stage of the formal review for DIP 1009 [1], "Improve 
Contract Syntax", is now underway. From now until 11:59 PM ET 
on September 13 (3:59 AM GMT on September 14), the community 
has the opportunity to provide last-minute feedback. If you 
missed either of the two preliminary review rounds [2][3], 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/98052839441fdb8c6cc05afccb9a81d084051c4d/DIPs/DIP1009.md

[2] 
http://forum.dlang.org/post/gjtsfysvtyxcfcmuu...@forum.dlang.org

[3] 
http://forum.dlang.org/post/luhdbjnsmfomtgpyd...@forum.dlang.org

I see that in the previous review rounds some people suggested 
various keywords for designating the return value of a function 
("return", "result", ...) in an `out` contract. What about using 
a plain old underscore? For example:

int abs(int x)
out(_ >= 0)
{
    return x>0 ? x : -x;
}