https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14988
Issue ID: 14988
Summary: Looks like inconsistent error report for the pointless
in-contract definition
Product: D
Version: D2
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P1
Component: dmd
Assignee: [email protected]
Reporter: [email protected]
Compiler reports an error for Foo1.foo, but not for Foo2.foo.
class Obj1
{
string foo() { return ""; }
}
class Obj2
{
string foo();
}
class Foo1 : Obj1
{
// Error: function test.Foo1.foo cannot have an in contract
// when overriden function test.Obj1.foo does not have an in
contract
override string foo()
in { }
body
{
return "foo";
}
}
class Foo2 : Obj2
{
// no error
override string foo()
in { }
body
{
return "foo";
}
}
----
The original mention is here:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/[email protected]
With 2.067.x, following code had worked without any errors, but with 2.068.1,
it makes an error.
class Foo
{
override string toString()
in { }
body
{
return "foo";
}
}
That's introduced by the druntime change that to directly use object.d than
object.di file.
--
