http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7584
--- Comment #5 from deadalnix <deadal...@gmail.com> 2012-02-26 08:28:57 PST --- (In reply to comment #4) > LSP is not violated. That is the point. The rules proposed here are sufficient > to guarantee LSP. The rules that are currently employed are too conservative. > Think about it. > > void main(){ > Foo foo = new Bar; > foo.foo(0); // call ok, returns 0 > // foo.foo(1); // _call_ not ok, violates in contract > } > > Also see issue 6857. issue 6857 is a valid point. I just did a post about that on the newsgroup. It means, in the proposed example, that the in contract should fail. So the out contract never reached. You definitively have a point here. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------