Issue 7517 - Interface contracts broken #4794
Conversation
9rnsr
force-pushed
the
fix7517
branch
4 times, most recently
from
817ca37
to
ff3766b
Compare
|
This is not affected by the conversion to ddmd. |
| static C self; | ||
|
|
||
| void setEnable() | ||
| in {} // supply in-contract to invoke I.setEnable.in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This PR tries to make it so no in-contract would mean inherit from base and empty in-contract - relax the contract to not require anything, which I think is more logical.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Huh, I completely forgot about it :-(. While I think it's more logical, and was a huge source of bugs for me (library methods are using contracts, and my code that was extending them was not, so none of the contracts were executed making me scratch the head when I saw that some arguments inside body are null, despite the in contract), I'm not sure if this will actually be accepted, as it is a breaking change, and I got busy with another things, so I completely forgot about it. If there's an interest, I can make it before Christmas.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@nemanja-boric-sociomantic since it's a breaking change, I think that we should start a forum discussion.
My hope is that since the behavior proposed by your PR is more intuitive, it will get supported by enough people to be accepted.
|
9rnsr
force-pushed
the
fix7517
branch
2 times, most recently
from
a05b8d7
to
e5cbcac
Compare
| @@ -148,7 +148,33 @@ elem *getEthis(Loc loc, IRState *irs, Dsymbol *fd) | |||
| * adding this frame into the linked list of stack | |||
| * frames. | |||
| */ | |||
| if (thisfd->hasNestedFrameRefs()) | |||
| if (fdp != thisfd) | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you please clarify the variable names fdparent and fdp?
|
Auto-merge toggled on |
|
thx |
Issue 7517 - Interface contracts broken
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7517
Based on: #4789