Re: [sv-bc] inconsistency wrt ref arguments to static subroutines

From: Steven Sharp <sharp_at_.....>
Date: Mon May 01 2006 - 10:44:42 PDT

Agreed.  Also, having the explicit "automatic" specification will make
clearer that it is talking about static lifetime, not the staticness
of a class method.

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com

Received on Mon May 1 10:44:47 2006

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Arturo Salz: "RE: [sv-bc] Re: [sv-ec] No event triggers in functions?"
Previous message: Roger Lutz: "[sv-bc] inconsistency wrt ref arguments to static subroutines"
Maybe in reply to: Roger Lutz: "[sv-bc] inconsistency wrt ref arguments to static subroutines"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ By Date ] [ By Thread ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ] [ By messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 01 2006 - 10:44:55 PDT