[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.

[d-bugmail at puremagic.com]

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857



--- Comment #32 from Stewart Gordon <smjg at iname.com> 2012-05-04 10:38:33 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> fizzbuzz() clearly has a bug. It will fail if given an A which isn't actually a
> B.

Exactly.  fizzbuzz is calling a method of A, not a method of B.  As such, as
I've already said, it must conform to A's API, but it is failing to do so.

(In reply to comment #31)
> I understand the distinction, and how the slides doesn't make it clear that the
> precondition is dynamically bound. In fact the author found it so obvious as to
> be unnecessary to mention

So it could have been just an oversight for all we know.

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