On 16.05.2017 22:00, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 09:48:07PM +0200, Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
I'm saying no to this:
...
{
}{
}
It doesn't have to be formatted that way. For example:
int foo()
in { assert(blah); }
{
// not so bad after all
}
IMO, this is just as bad. It's the same thing.
(Not to mention the IMO very ugly syntax clash with
do-loops, which will reduce code readability even more.)
...
Do you think your new syntax is significantly more readable? (Just
curious.)
It at least gets rid of the verbosity of the current syntax. I don't
claim it's necessarily *significantly* more readable, but I'd consider
it to be one step closer. Getting all the way there would be another
topic, and a very long, protracted one, given our track record.
But still: If we are going to break all usages of contracts, then why
not just fix the entire syntax at once? It just seems to be a much
better option than making it worse.
