Small inconsistency in 'if a inherits B' semantics.

[nevdelap]

Once the 'a inherits B' is found to be true and a is allowed to be used as a B it would be nice if it was allowed in subsequent parts of the same expression rather than needing to wait until the next statement.

The second and third if statements here are the example.

In other words 'if x, if y, do something' should be equivalent to 'if x and y, do something'.

I hope I'm being clear enough.

class A
	pass

class B inherits A
	pass

class P
	var _list as List<of B> is shared

	def main is shared
		a as A = B()
		#_list.add(a) No allowed, ok.
		if a inherits B
			_list.add(a) # Magically allowed by Cobra.
		if a inherits B
			if not _list.contains(a) # Ditto.
				_list.add(a)
		if a inherits B and not _list.contains(a) # error
			_list.add(a)

error: Argument 1 of method "contains" expects type B?, but the call is supplying type A.

[Chuck]

You are being clear and I totally agree and have wanted this for awhile. I just haven't gotten to it. The same thing applies to non-nil:

foo as Foo?
# ...
if foo and obj.bar(foo)  # this should work even if obj's .bar method requires a non-nil Foo

These are related in terms of implementation.