On Tuesday, 3 December 2019 at 02:57:13 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Monday, 2 December 2019 at 22:31:08 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
Interesting, could be useful, but now you have to remember to
add "in(false)".
Yeah, it is kinda tempting to propose a language change, where
an override method does this by default if nothing else is
specified. I think it would probably usually be the right thing
to do, and then you'd opt into extending it all the way by
doing `in(true)` instead.
Yes, I agree, if you forget to add a specification then it
probably should have the same strictness as the superclass. That
is what I would expect.
