On Saturday, 13 May 2017 at 18:07:57 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 13.05.2017 16:30, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote:
On Saturday, 13 May 2017 at 10:27:25 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 12.05.2017 18:17, Mike Parker wrote:
The first stage of the formal review for DIP 1003 [1],
"Remove body as a
Keyword", is now underway. From now until 11:59 PM ET on May
26 (3:59 AM
GMT on May 27), the community has the opportunity to provide
last-minute
feedback. If you missed the preliminary review [2], 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/fbb797f61ac92300eda1d63202157cd2a30ba555/DIPs/DIP1003.md
[2]
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/[email protected]
Option 1 is good: There is nothing wrong with the current
syntax. [1]
Option 2 is bad: It's the function body, not the function.
Option 3 is ugly: There is no precedent for '...{}{}'
belonging to the
same declaration or statement.
Hmm, I guess it depends on how you format your code.
No, it does not. This was a point about the grammar.
How would you feel about:
if(condition){ then(); }
{ otherwise(); }
It isn't the same.
1) It is ambiguous: { otherwise(); } can be a statement in a
block or an else condition. But it wasn't the real point.
2) Nested ifs are used much more often than nested functions, and
the code with a lot of nested ifs would look unreadable without
else. It isn't the case for the functions. I suppose that
contracts a mostly used on outer functions and it would look
pretty clear.
