interfaces and contracts - new pattern
Adam D. Ruppe
destructionator at gmail.com
Tue Dec 3 02:57:13 UTC 2019
On Monday, 2 December 2019 at 22:31:08 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
> Interesting, could be useful, but now you have to remember to
> add "in(false)".
Yeah, it is kinda tempting to propose a language change, where an
override method does this by default if nothing else is
specified. I think it would probably usually be the right thing
to do, and then you'd opt into extending it all the way by doing
> I wonder if this could somehow be wrapped up in a clean way
> using meta-programming so you always get the "in(false)"?
I don't think so, contracts are invisible to reflection right now
(unless there's a trick I don't know). Maybe a language change is
warranted though, I don't really know, especially since this
thing is possible today.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce