interfaces and contracts - new pattern
jared771 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 3 17:17:15 UTC 2019
On Tuesday, 3 December 2019 at 17:10:04 UTC, Meta wrote:
> 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?
I think this is the defect in question:
I see a PR in comment 35: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/4200
But it was closed. However, Iain Buclaw created a successor to
Which is still open, but Iain ran into stack corruption issues
when compiling with the -m64 flag... and no further progress. So
I guess it's just a matter of the bug not being fixed.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce