"David Nadlinger" <s...@klickverbot.at> wrote in message news:iuodav$2n7s$1...@digitalmars.com... > In any case, I consider the current implementation buggy, as having no in > contract in the superclass is different from having an empty in contract > there: > > --- > class Foo { > void baz(int i) {} > } > > class Bar : Foo { > override void baz(int i) in { > assert(i < 5, "I am triggered, but should not be."); > } body { > assert(i < 5, "I should be triggered instead of the contract."); > } > } > > void main() { > auto bar = new Bar; > bar.baz(6); > } > --- > > David
There's a patch for this!