On 10/27/2011 2:12 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Yes, this design has indeed a keyword-issue that your proposal has not.
I am all for not making it a keyword. The 'body' keyword imho should be
removed too, there is only one place in the grammar where it is ever
needed (and there it is completely redundant), therefore it could just
be lexed as an identifier. That would not break any code.
Agreed. In fact, it occurred to me the other day that we could write
contracts as
void foo(T t)
{
scope(in) {
// pre-condition contracts
}
scope(out) {
// post-condition contracts
}
// ...body of function...
}
and eliminate the 'in', 'out' and 'body' keywords/constructs entirely.
Similarly, an invariant could appear in the default constructor of a
class as
this()
{
scope(invariant) {
// invariant guarantees...
}
// ...body of constructor...
}
Or *any* constructor, really, although you would probably want the
compiler to enforce that no more than one constructor defined a
scope(invariant) block. This notation also suggests (correctly) that the
invariant doesn't take effect until you have entered the constructor.
(Exited it, really, but...)
-- Davidson
