http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6856
Jesse Phillips <jesse.k.phillip...@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jesse.k.phillip...@gmail.co | |m --- Comment #21 from Jesse Phillips <jesse.k.phillip...@gmail.com> 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 B.foo. 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: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------