http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857


timon.g...@gmx.ch changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|INVALID                     |WONTFIX


--- Comment #8 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 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: -------

Reply via email to