interfaces and contracts - new pattern

Robert M. Münch robert.muench at
Tue Dec 3 10:39:08 UTC 2019

On 2019-12-03 07:53:48 +0000, Ola Fosheim Grøstad said:

> 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.

+1 having to add something explicit to get the superclass contract 
activated looks weired.

In large scale projects this will become a big problem as you can't 
assume that every developer knows about all the contracts of a 

Robert M. Münch
smarter | better | faster

More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce mailing list