Jesse Phillips <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |
                   |                            |m

--- Comment #21 from Jesse Phillips <> 2012-02-26 
19:34:51 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

If I didn't supply an 'in' to the derived class function, I would expect not
abiding by the base class contract to be an error. So I agree that an explicate
foo() in{} should be used and that foo() in { assert(0); } looks like an ugly
workaround, and would prefer not to restate the inherited class contract.

Configure issuemail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to