On Thursday, 2 November 2017 at 18:40:26 UTC, bauss wrote:
I disagree with that, because it would make the language very verbose.
Personally, I think function headers are starting to become to verbose.
I don't believe removing the separate scaffolding that accompanies contracts, so that you incorporate contracts directly into the scaffolding of a function header is a good design choice.
There was an inital design choice to put in that scaffolding for contracts, and presumably it was done so for a reason. I didn't see that discussed in the DIP.
