http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6856
--- Comment #8 from Stewart Gordon <s...@iname.com> 2011-11-01 10:06:36 PDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > Shouldn't "Y y" print "Y.f()" if Y can loose the in contract? > Shouldn't "X z" and "Y z" print *something* (probably "X.f()" and "Y.f()" > respectively)? Only one of the contracts needs to pass for the overall contract to pass. So once it's tried one and found that it's passed, it doesn't need to try the others. When you have a Y, it first tries X's in contract. This passes, so it doesn't need to check Y's as well. Of course, an implementation could just as well check Y's contract first and then fall back to X's if that fails. But because Z's in contract is empty, the compiler just optimises away the whole contract checking. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
