http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6856
Jesse Phillips <jesse.k.phillip...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jesse.k.phillip...@gmail.co
| |m
--- Comment #21 from Jesse Phillips <jesse.k.phillip...@gmail.com> 2012-02-26
19:34:51 PST ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> There is no "B's in". That is the point. The bug is that an implicit 'in'
> contract that always passes is added to B.foo.
If I didn't supply an 'in' to the derived class function, I would expect not
abiding by the base class contract to be an error. So I agree that an explicate
foo() in{} should be used and that foo() in { assert(0); } looks like an ugly
workaround, and would prefer not to restate the inherited class contract.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
