http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=302
Walter Bright changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=302
--- Comment #13 from s...@iname.com 2009-05-04 08:48 ---
But if the arguments to a method aren't guaranteed to pass the base class
contracts, one wouldn't be calling it through a base class reference. Hence my
point.
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=302
--- Comment #12 from ma...@pochta.ru 2009-05-04 08:11 ---
Caller can't check descendant contracts, which can succeed.
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=302
s...@iname.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||s...@iname.com
--- Comment #11 fr
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=302
--- Comment #10 from ma...@pochta.ru 2009-04-24 08:14 ---
He rejected to call in contract by caller, because it obviously should be
called by callee.
ps yeah, checking this contract before super contract is better :)
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=302
--- Comment #9 from clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2009-04-24 07:19 ---
Here's the link to Stewart's original post.
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/31595.html
Note that Walter seems to have rejected Stewart's 3rd point, wh
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=302
--- Comment #8 from ma...@pochta.ru 2009-04-24 05:38 ---
Isn't it trivial to implement?
---
Foo bar(A a, B b, C c)
{
try{super.inConstract(a,b,c);}
catch(Throwable){this.inConstract(a,b,c);}
//body
super.outContract(result);
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=302
--- Comment #7 from s...@iname.com 2009-04-22 09:53 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> So please, please, please, don't change the specs, fix the implementation.
I entirely agree. Moreover, I proposed a strategy more than 3 years ago. S
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=302
--- Comment #6 from llu...@gmail.com 2009-04-22 08:35 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > The spec specifies what the code should do, but the code being generated
> > does
> > something else. How is that not th
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=302
clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||spec
--- Comment #5 from c
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=302
--- Comment #4 from fvbom...@wxs.nl 2009-04-22 07:41 ---
The spec specifies what the code should do, but the code being generated does
something else. How is that not the very definition of wrong-code?
(This probably falls in the "the
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=302
--- Comment #3 from clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2009-04-22 07:34 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> "it's not bad code generation" - how do you work that out?
Bad code generation generally means the front-end is sending incorrect data to
the ba
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=302
--- Comment #2 from s...@iname.com 2009-04-22 06:46 ---
"it's not bad code generation" - how do you work that out?
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=302
clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |
--- Comment #1 from clugd
14 matches
Mail list logo
