interfaces and contracts - new pattern
jared771 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 3 17:10:04 UTC 2019
On Monday, 2 December 2019 at 20:30:49 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> In short use `in(false)` when you `override` a function to
> inherit the contract, unless you explicitly want to expand the
> input - which you shouldn't do when implementing an interface!
> Wrote about it in more details here:
> i think this is a pretty cool little discovery, thanks too for
> the folks on irc for chatting it through.
> destroy if i missed anything lol
I thought this was a defect that was fixed a long time ago, where
if the overriding function has no contract, it is implicitly
given a "in (true)" contract, causing the contract of the
overridden function to not be run. Am I mistaken as to what the
defect was, or as to whether it was fixed, or both?
More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce