On Thursday, October 06, 2016 05:25:19 Patrick Schluter via Digitalmars-d wrote: > Sorry, I find the actual body without body keyword much more > natural (i.e. intuitive) than having the body requiring it only > when there are contracts. It would be even consistent with the > template syntax where 1 parenthesis pair is runtime parameter and > when there are 2 pairs template+runtime. The genious idea of D > was to find that template parameter didn't require the > abomination of alternate parenthesis < >. In the same vein, I'm > sure that the body keyword is superfluous as the contract > statements are unambiguously marked. That body keyword is so > "un-D-ic" as it gets.
Yeah, the fact that the body keyword is not required normally but is when you have in/out contracts is annoying, completely aside from what the keyword used is. I don't care much about losing the name body to a keyword, but I definitely don't like that you have to use a keyword for a function body when you have in/out contracts. It doesn't seem like it should be necessary, and it's inconsistent with the normal case. - Jonathan M Davis
