interfaces and contracts - new pattern

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Tuesday, 3 December 2019 at 02:57:13 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Monday, 2 December 2019 at 22:31:08 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
> wrote:
>> 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 `in(true)` instead.

Yes, I agree, if you forget to add a specification then it 
probably should have the same strictness as the superclass. That 
is what I would expect.