http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #34 from Stewart Gordon <s...@iname.com> 2012-05-04 13:27:50 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #33)
OK, so there's this issue. It may also be a documented guarantee that the
return value from bar is a valid argument for foo.
But you could still argue that the call is in breach of A's API and therefore
the code is incorrect. To be correct, the in contract for A.foo would have to
be something like
in { assert(x > 0 || x == bar()); }
But since enforcing this now is a potentially breaking change, I can now see a
case for leaving the behvaiour as it is.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
