On 7/2/11 8:02 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/2/2011 4:04 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/1/11 6:32 PM, Robert Jacques wrote:
No. I think the current behavior is correct. In fact, if anything, D
shouldn't allow you to define an in contract on any override method. A
Sub is a Base and therefore must be able to handle all inputs that are
valid for a Base.
That is a sensible enhancement.
This would throw out the whole idea of 'loosening'.
I mean disallow an override to add an "in" contract where the overridden
method had a body but no "in" contract.
Andrei