Re: DIP 1009--Improve Contract Usability--Preliminary Review Round 1

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d]

On 6/23/17 5:06 AM, Solomon E wrote:
What I expected from my impression of existing D syntax was that 
something like this might be coming up:

T foo(T)(T x, T y)
     in (x > 0, y > 0)
     out (r; r > 0)
{
     return x % y + 1;
}

The out contract looks pretty good actually. The in contract, not as 
good. That looks like a comma expression. I'd rather see this be:

     in(x > 0)
     in(y > 0)

or

     in(x > 0 && y > 0)

In this case, we have something I think I would support.

-Steve