Mark Hartoog wrote: [...] > My opinion is that engineers are not language experts, and giving an > error when there is any ambiguity in what the default value expression > means is ok. I would just like to point out that the other languages > with this feature do not have things like hierarchical functional calls > or interface function calls, which make this issue more complicated. Mark, the problem with this approach is that we're defining a *standard*. If you really want to permit ambiguity and room for interpretation, fine, define the minimal required situations in which something is guaranteed to have known behavior and then add language for the remainder to the effect that "implementations may choose....". Then it is clear to the users AND the implementors what the base standard behavior is that one can rely on. There is going to be enough interpretation differences based on things that we haven't yet recognized that we shouldn't be willing to accept ambiguity in situations where we have recognized problems, particularly where interpretations are vastly different in terms of what is legal. Gord > Mark Hartoog > 700 E. Middlefield Road > Mountain View, CA 94043 > 650 584-5404 > markh@synopsys.com > -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Vreugdenhil, Staff Engineer 503-685-0808 Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.comReceived on Thu Mar 3 16:12:06 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 03 2005 - 16:12:11 PST