revert deprecation of body

[WalterBright]

The code comment says it all:

"body was quite widely used"

And it doesn't actually hurt anything to leave it in.

[dlang-bot]

Thanks for your pull request, @WalterBright!

Bugzilla references

Your PR doesn't reference any Bugzilla issue.

If your PR contains non-trivial changes, please reference a Bugzilla issue or create a manual changelog.

Testing this PR locally

If you don't have a local development environment setup, you can use Digger to test this PR:

dub run digger -- build "master + dmd#15379"

[Herringway]

It hurts the planned ability to free the body keyword for use as a name.

It also hurts trust in the language. It's been two years since the first release with the deprecation. People (myself included) have already made all the necessary changes. What else will be undone? Can we trust any of the other DIPs to remain implemented? I do not like this uncertainty.

[thewilsonator]

as noted the whole point of removing body as a keyword is so that is can be used as a variable name, deprecation is the first step towards that and we shouldn't be undoing that.

[WalterBright]

Using body as a regular identifier is already allowed. This reversion will not break that. body is a contextual keyword, not an actual keyword.

Can we trust any of the other DIPs to remain implemented?

We don't want to break those, either. The whole point of this initiative is to stop breaking peoples' existing code.

[ibuclaw]

And it doesn't actually hurt anything to leave it in.

It hurts those who would like to have a variable named body?

For example, HTML content tends to have a body.

I see this was already mentioned.

body is a contextual keyword, not an actual keyword.

When did that happen? I only recall the many posts where users say they couldn't use body.

[WalterBright]

When did that happen?

I don't know, but the proof is here: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/15379/files#diff-197670928b0e5ec0254c1edd8b3588469b86ac670c013a2d0d42426a6d36b47eR719

body can already be used as a variable name

[adamdruppe]

Yes, this is how it should have been done in the first place.