On 12/05/2014 02:39 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> In other words, the lack of explicit in-contract on Deriv.foo is being
> taken as an _empty_ in-contract, which is being interpreted as per the
> rule that a derived class can have a less restrictive contract than its
> base (cf. TDPL pp.329-331).
This is a known problem with contract inheritance. The following bug
report mentions the ugly hack of defining assert(0) as the derived's
'in' contract:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6856
Ali
