http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6856



--- Comment #16 from deadalnix <deadal...@gmail.com> 2012-02-26 07:43:52 PST ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> There is no "B's in". That is the point. The bug is that an implicit 'in'
> contract that always passes is added to B.foo.

Yes that is the point. As no contract has been specified, it is assumed that
this function can accept anything. And so the implicit in contract alway
succeed, so A's contract never get executed.

Stewart Gordon already explained that and he is right.

However, Don's proposal make sense (defining how contract is executed at
callee's place instead of caller's place).

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

Reply via email to