Inheritance and in-contracts

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On 05/12/14 23:45, Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> This is a known problem with contract inheritance. The following bug report
> mentions the ugly hack of defining assert(0) as the derived's 'in' contract:
>
>    https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6856

Thanks for the clarification.  This is a not-nice situation; FWIW I would second 
Don's proposal that the absence of an explicit in-contract on the derived-class 
method ought to indicate inheritance of the base contract.

I guess the assert(false) method will do, but I find it as ugly as you do :-(

One further annoyance, pointed out to me by a colleague earlier today: given 
that base and derived in-contracts basically come down to,

    try
    {
        Base.in()
    }
    catch (Throwable)
    {
       Derived.in()
    }

... aren't there some nasty consequences here for memory allocation and the 
generation of garbage?