On Friday, 21 July 2017 at 13:51:05 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
DIP 1009 is titled "Improve Contract Usability".
[...]
Destroy!
I really like how the syntax turned out. My only remaining peeve
is the `ContractParameters` nomenclature in the grammar section,
because it implies that asserts are contracts. If contracts and
asserts share a common grammar rule, imho the rule's name should
be agnostic to either of them, like `ConditionalParameters`. In
any case, it's a complaint on a very high level and arguably not
relevant to any end user (as usually no one other than compiler
people look at the grammar rules, anyway).
Thanks for the time invested in the DIP!
