[Issue 6856] Absence of in() contract (precondition) should mean "use default precondition" instead of "ignore inherited in() contracts"

[d-bugmail at puremagic.com]

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6856


Leandro Lucarella <leandro.lucarella at sociomantic.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|enhancement                 |normal


--- Comment #31 from Leandro Lucarella <leandro.lucarella at sociomantic.com> 2013-01-22 07:24:33 PST ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> Not sure why this wasn't flagged as INVALID before.  But now that the summary
> line's changed and some comments to the effect of it have been posted, it's
> essentially an enhancement request.  But it'll probably be rejected because the
> code breakage that would result.

The line between a fix and an enhancement here is very thin. As other people
pointed out, in contract inheritance as they are are not only useless, but
extremely dangerous, because they give a false sense of security. Is really
hard to debug a problem where you think some preconditions are met (because the
code say so), but they really aren't.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------