On 2017-06-02 16:17, Mike Parker wrote:
> Congratulations are in order for Jared Hanson. Walter and Andrei have
> approved his proposal to remove body as a keyword. I've added a summary
> of their decision to the end of the DIP for anyone who cares to read it.
> In short:
>
> * body temporarily becomes a contextual keyword and is deprecated
> * do is immediately allowed in its place
> * body is removed and do replaces it fully
>
> Congratulations, Jared!
>
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1003.md

That's great.

BTW, didn't we use to vote on the DIPs, or was that only for new Phobos modules?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Saturday, 3 June 2017 at 07:01:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/2/2017 9:56 PM, MysticZach wrote:
>> Also Mike Parker seems to be doing a very good job in his appointed position as DIP manager.
>
> Yes, I am very happy with Mike's contributions on this, as well as on his blog work. We are very fortunate to have Mike with us.

Thanks!

On 06/03/2017 11:08 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 6/2/17 10:17 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
>> Congratulations are in order for Jared Hanson. Walter and Andrei have approved his proposal to remove body as a keyword. I've added a summary of their decision to the end of the DIP for anyone who cares to read it. In short:
>>
>> * body temporarily becomes a contextual keyword and is deprecated
>> * do is immediately allowed in its place
>> * body is removed and do replaces it fully
>>
>> Congratulations, Jared!
>>
>> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1003.md
> 
> Congrats to all who worked on this. Next step is to revise the DIP that puts the approved option to the fore and mentions the others only as other options that have been analyzed. This is because we have an "Approved" status but not "Approved Option X". Thanks! -- Andrei

Sorry, was looking at a stale copy. I think the DIP is fine as is. The previously discussed options are available as earlier revisions of the DIP. -- Andrei

On 6/3/2017 12:28 AM, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote:
> Personally, making contracts less verbose and more powerful is much higher on my list 
We did discuss bouncing the DIP back with a request to revamp it as a complete overhaul of the contract syntax, but decided that this DIP was about resolving a simple and immediate problem, and it shouldn't be held up on that basis.

On Saturday, June 03, 2017 17:16:52 Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote:
> On 2017-06-02 16:17, Mike Parker wrote:
> > Congratulations are in order for Jared Hanson. Walter and Andrei have approved his proposal to remove body as a keyword. I've added a summary of their decision to the end of the DIP for anyone who cares to read it. In short:
> >
> > * body temporarily becomes a contextual keyword and is deprecated
> > * do is immediately allowed in its place
> > * body is removed and do replaces it fully
> >
> > Congratulations, Jared!
> >
> > https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1003.md
>
> That's great.
>
> BTW, didn't we use to vote on the DIPs, or was that only for new Phobos modules?

Only new Phobos modules. DIPs have been discussed quite a bit in the newsgroup, but their decision process has never been democratic. It's always been a matter of talking Walter into it, which has usually led to stuff never going anywhere when we haven't had a process for it with someone organizing it. Previously, I think that most DIPs that got implemented were something that Walter was personally interested in, or you managed to convince him in person. What Dicebot and Mike have done with DIPs has changed things drastically, but it's still completely up to Walter and Andrei.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 06/02/2017 11:44 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

> Yes, count me somewhat disappointed at merely changing `body` to `do`.

If that's the only change, then we have a serious issue with the text of this DIP. I think the DIP must be corrected with the following change. Please review and then change the DIP accordingly:

from: "Add do as an optional keyword in the place of body."

  to: "Add do as an alternative keyword in place of body."

(Unimportantly, I removed a "the" as well.)

Ali

On Saturday, 3 June 2017 at 20:06:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/3/2017 12:28 AM, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote:
>> Personally, making contracts less verbose and more powerful is much higher on my list
> We did discuss bouncing the DIP back with a request to revamp it as a complete overhaul of the contract syntax, but decided that this DIP was about resolving a simple and immediate problem, and it shouldn't be held up on that basis.

There's currently a proposal in the PR queue to enhance the contract syntax.

https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/66

On Saturday, 3 June 2017 at 23:43:10 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:

>
> If that's the only change, then we have a serious issue with the text of this DIP. I think the DIP must be corrected with the following change. Please review and then change the DIP accordingly:
>
> from: "Add do as an optional keyword in the place of body."
>
>   to: "Add do as an alternative keyword in place of body."
>
> (Unimportantly, I removed a "the" as well.)
>
> Ali

I think the two words are fairly close in meaning in this context. Changed it anyway (and caught a typo, too). Thanks!

On 6/2/2017 7:17 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1003.md

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6855

On 6/3/2017 5:20 PM, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Saturday, 3 June 2017 at 20:06:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 6/3/2017 12:28 AM, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote:
>>> Personally, making contracts less verbose and more powerful is much higher on my list
>> We did discuss bouncing the DIP back with a request to revamp it as a complete overhaul of the contract syntax, but decided that this DIP was about resolving a simple and immediate problem, and it shouldn't be held up on that basis.
> 
> There's currently a proposal in the PR queue to enhance the contract syntax.
> 
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/66

I know. That's as it should be!