http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
[email protected] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|INVALID |WONTFIX --- Comment #8 from [email protected] 2012-05-02 15:10:01 PDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > This is a misunderstanding about how inheritance works. No, it is not. The precondition is what needs to be satisfied by the client of the method. The client has no way to know what exactly to satisfy if the precondition is dynamically bound, therefore the client usually has to assume that they have to satisfy the statically bound precondition. Failure to do so is a bug most of the time. I am not going to argue this further. It can probably go either way. The current behavior detects less bugs, but the proposed change would make writing contracts for certain cases cases where eg. a method accepts a parameter that has distinct restrictions depending on the result of a previous method invocation on the same object a little bit harder. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
