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(); }
I don't see any problem, in fact this is valid code even today -
both in C++ and D.
And my case still stands - if you were to format the code like
this:
if (condition)
{
then();
}
{
otherwise();
}
then the intent would be more obvious. At least in C++ using a
plain scope { }
is common idiom used to explicitly limit the lifetime of RAII
objects declared
within it.
