You're Doing In-Conditions Wrong

[FeepingCreature]

On Tuesday, 14 July 2020 at 16:09:59 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On 7/14/20 11:37 AM, FeepingCreature wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 14 July 2020 at 13:37:58 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
>> wrote:
>>> But I somewhat disagree. Yes, you can write bad contracts, 
>>> but that is not on the compiler, and can't really be checked 
>>> by the compiler. The compiler enforces the rule by ignoring 
>>> what the derived class does if the parent class passes. It 
>>> doesn't enforce the logic of your contract fits the rule.
>>>
>> 
>> It can be checked by the compiler just fine at runtime. IMO, 
>> this is what unittests are for.
>
> But the derived contracts are intended to be used only if the 
> base contract fails. It's not entirely inappropriate or unheard 
> of to write such a contract with that in mind.
>

Right, I agree that this is what it's intended for, I just think 
that's a bad intent. It's not *entirely* inappropriate or unheard 
to write such a contract, but I do think it's *almost* entirely 
inappropriate and unheard. Do you have any practical examples, 
not contrived i==3 cases?