Hello Walter,

I'm currently working on a DIP on the topic of either removing or replacing the `body` keyword in D's contract programming syntax. I've found that the best possible way to do this, without any breaking changes to user code, would be to turn `body` into a contextual keyword. I know that you've expressed your opposition to contextual keywords in the past, but it's hard to find any concrete (and more important, recent) posts stating it clearly (as well as your reasons), other than this one: http://forum.dlang.org/post/npsp8a$mv4$1@digitalmars.com

Can I ask you to give a definitive statement on contextual keywords in D (whether support, oppose, or are neutral to their addition), as well as a bit of rationale? This will then give me something official to link to in the DIP (and we will able to update the D FAQ with it as well).

Link to DIP: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/48

On Monday, 7 November 2016 at 03:33:47 UTC, Meta wrote:
> Hello Walter,
>
> I'm currently working on a DIP on the topic of either removing or replacing the `body` keyword in D's contract programming syntax. I've found that the best possible way to do this, without any breaking changes to user code, would be to turn `body` into a contextual keyword. I know that you've expressed your opposition to contextual keywords in the past, but it's hard to find any concrete (and more important, recent) posts stating it clearly (as well as your reasons), other than this one: http://forum.dlang.org/post/npsp8a$mv4$1@digitalmars.com
>

Why not make it a plain identifier ? We give identifier special meaning in various places, like scope(exit).

On Monday, 7 November 2016 at 04:32:52 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Monday, 7 November 2016 at 03:33:47 UTC, Meta wrote:
>> Hello Walter,
>>
>> I'm currently working on a DIP on the topic of either removing or replacing the `body` keyword in D's contract programming syntax. I've found that the best possible way to do this, without any breaking changes to user code, would be to turn `body` into a contextual keyword. I know that you've expressed your opposition to contextual keywords in the past, but it's hard to find any concrete (and more important, recent) posts stating it clearly (as well as your reasons), other than this one: http://forum.dlang.org/post/npsp8a$mv4$1@digitalmars.com
>>
>
> Why not make it a plain identifier ? We give identifier special meaning in various places, like scope(exit).

If I am not mistaken we do not need body ay at all.

On 11/07/2016 08:40 AM, Stefan Koch wrote:
>> Why not make it a plain identifier ? We give identifier special meaning in various places, like scope(exit).
> 
> If I am not mistaken we do not need body ay at all.

It is matter of how smooth deprecation phase is. Completely removal of `body` is OK long-term but that would mean one have to wait several years of deprecation phase before it can be used as identifier in user code. Making it deprecated _and_ contextual results in immediate availability.

On 07.11.2016 12:38, Dicebot wrote:
> On 11/07/2016 08:40 AM, Stefan Koch wrote:
>>> Why not make it a plain identifier ? We give identifier special
>>> meaning in various places, like scope(exit).
>>
>> If I am not mistaken we do not need body ay at all.
>
> It is matter of how smooth deprecation phase is. Completely removal of
> `body` is OK long-term but that would mean one have to wait several
> years of deprecation phase before it can be used as identifier in user
> code. Making it deprecated _and_ contextual results in immediate
> availability.
>

What's the new syntax for contracts if body is removed?

On Monday, 7 November 2016 at 13:24:20 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 07.11.2016 12:38, Dicebot wrote:
>> On 11/07/2016 08:40 AM, Stefan Koch wrote:
>>>> Why not make it a plain identifier ? We give identifier special
>>>> meaning in various places, like scope(exit).
>>>
>>> If I am not mistaken we do not need body ay at all.
>>
>> It is matter of how smooth deprecation phase is. Completely removal of
>> `body` is OK long-term but that would mean one have to wait several
>> years of deprecation phase before it can be used as identifier in user
>> code. Making it deprecated _and_ contextual results in immediate
>> availability.
>>
>
> What's the new syntax for contracts if body is removed?

Currently https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/48  (https://github.com/MetaLang/DIPs/blob/8f3ac3a133cd1f9095dd992f38ae377f5987caa4/DIPs/DIP1003.md) proposes either use `function` keyword instead of `body` or simply omit it with two blocks following each other.

I'm not sure if there's a point as Walter exclusively uses a mail client, but I'm bumping this back to the first page anyway.