RE: [sv-bc] 12.4.5 Optional argument list - question

Steven,

Thanks for the clarifications.

Small comments inside:


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Sharp [mailto:sharp@cadence.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 9:25 PM
> To: sv-bc@eda.org; Bresticker, Shalom
> Subject: Re: [sv-bc] 12.4.5 Optional argument list - question
> 
> 
> >From: "Bresticker, Shalom" <shalom.bresticker@intel.com>
> 
> >12.4.5 says,
> >
> >"When a void function or class function method specifies no
arguments,
> >the empty parenthesis, (), following the subroutine name shall be
> >optional. This is also true for tasks, void functions, and class
> methods
> >that require arguments, when all arguments have defaults specified.
It
> >shall be illegal to omit the parenthesis in a directly recursive
> nonvoid
> >function method call that is not hierarchically qualified."
> >
> >This is unclear about nonvoid functions.
> 
> The intent of this text was to require the empty parentheses for
normal
> function calls.  They can only be omitted in the 2 cases specified:
> void functions, and class function methods.
> 
> 
> >The first two sentences specify when parentheses (not 'parenthesis')
> may
> >be omitted. Both apply to void functions only. This implies that
> nonvoid
> >function calls may never omit the parentheses.
> 
> Void functions, and void or non-void class function methods.  The
> sentence should be read as "(void function) or (class function
method)",
> not as "void (function or class function method)".  If the latter had
> been meant, it would have just said "void function", because a class
> function method is a function.  It might have been clearer if it had
> said "void function or class method function", but perhaps that is
> wrong terminology.

[Shalom] Yes, but when I wrote "void functions only", I meant to ignore
the case of class methods and just relate to regular functions.

> 
> Personally, I wanted to require parens in the case of non-void class
> function methods too.  However, the intent of the approved text was
> to allow them to be omitted, even though that might not be clear from
> the wording.
> 
> >The last sentence says that parentheses may not be omitted in a
nonvoid
> >function call in a corner case. This implies that they may be omitted
> in
> >all other cases.
> 
> Look at it again.  It says that they may not be omitted in a non-void
> function *method* call in a corner case.  And as you say, this implies
> that they may be omitted in non-void function method calls in other
> cases.  That is the same thing that the earlier statement already said
> explicitly (though perhaps not clearly enough).

[Shalom] You're correct that the use of "method" should have tipped me
off, but it contrasts with the use of "class function method" earlier,
with the addition of the word "class". Also, some non-class functions
are also called "methods", as in interfaces.

The fact is that other, more knowledgeable people were also confused by
this wording.
 
Thanks,
Shalom