On 2019-12-03 07:53:48 +0000, Ola Fosheim Grøstad said:
On Tuesday, 3 December 2019 at 02:57:13 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Monday, 2 December 2019 at 22:31:08 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
Interesting, could be useful, but now you have to remember to add "in(false)".
Yeah, it is kinda tempting to propose a language change, where an
override method does this by default if nothing else is specified. I
think it would probably usually be the right thing to do, and then
you'd opt into extending it all the way by doing `in(true)` instead.
Yes, I agree, if you forget to add a specification then it probably
should have the same strictness as the superclass. That is what I would
expect.
+1 having to add something explicit to get the superclass contract
activated looks weired.
In large scale projects this will become a big problem as you can't
assume that every developer knows about all the contracts of a
superclass.
--
Robert M. Münch
http://www.saphirion.com
smarter | better | faster
