On 29/02/2012 19:24, Timon Gehr wrote:
<snip>
That was just for documentation... The part that is explicit is:
// Single inheritance of state
class ExtendedWidget : Widget {
override void print(uint level)
in { /* weakening precondition is okay */ } body {
... level may be 0 here ...
}
}
The fact that this weakens the precondition tells us that it was not weakened
before.
Of course. I see now.
Besides, the interface declaration there isn't allowed by the grammar.
The compiler implements it.
So what? It's a bug that compiler behaviour doesn't match the documentation. You seem to
be agreed that this is the case with what happens to the contract where the override has
no InStatement at all.
<snip>
So you consider illegal inputs to a function to be part of the API?
Yes. Put differently, I consider legal inputs to a overridable virtual function
to be part
of the API.
That legal inputs are part of the API is something we're agreed on. It's illegal inputs
we were debating.
But I can see what you really mean: the spec of what inputs to an overridable function are
legal and what inputs are illegal is part of the API.
Stewart.
