Perhaps I am expecting too much from the current 'in' contract design
and implementation. ;)
Still, the virtual function call in the following interface's 'in'
contract should be dispatched to the implementaion in the derived class,
right?
It seems like mere presence of that virtual
Ali Çehreli:
Perhaps I am expecting too much from the current 'in' contract
design and implementation. ;)
The in contract is named pre-condition, or precondition.
Bye,
bearophile
On 11/4/14 3:01 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
Perhaps I am expecting too much from the current 'in' contract design
and implementation. ;)
Still, the virtual function call in the following interface's 'in'
contract should be dispatched to the implementaion in the derived class,
right?
It seems like
On 11/4/14 3:26 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 11/4/14 3:01 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
Perhaps I am expecting too much from the current 'in' contract design
and implementation. ;)
Still, the virtual function call in the following interface's 'in'
contract should be dispatched to the
On 11/04/2014 12:41 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Yep. I debugged it. It's calling toHash instead.
Yeah, you were spot on. :) I did a different experiment. I added a
number of functions to the interface (before virtualCheck()) and
implementations to the class:
interface I
{
// ...
On 11/04/2014 12:26 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
This looks like a dmd bug.
Posted:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13687
Ali
