http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #52 from Andrei Alexandrescu <and...@metalanguage.com> 2012-05-05 08:54:17 PDT --- (In reply to comment #51) > I'm sorry, but this reading can't close the discussion. I think it does. The proposed behavior does not allow this: "None of this, then, is permitted. But the reverse changes are of course legitimate. A redeclaration may weaken the original’s precondition or it may strengthen the postcondition. Changes of either kind mean that the subcon- tractor does a better job than the original contractor-which there is no reason to prohibit." Doing a better job is succeeding where the parent method would have failed its precondition. It all boils down to the fact that it's natural to have methods that can't work in the parent but do work in the child. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
