I personally think that the "Uniform Access Principle" causes far more grief that value; it causes special case rules for various kinds of tfs for backwards compatibility, it means that class static methods are NOT the same as a normal non-class static tf, and it causes additional confusion about the nature of "." as an "operator". I would be strongly in favor of deprecating the use of unparenthesized calls. Gord. Steven Sharp wrote: >> From: "Brad Pierce" <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com> > >> Relevant LRM examples from 8.11 >> >> b1.a.j // reaches into a, which is a property of b1 >> p.next.next.next.val // chain through a sequence of handles to get >> to val > > I don't see how this is relevant, since these are references to > properties, not methods. If method calls were required to have > parentheses, this would have been obvious. The two are not the > same thing, despite your personal belief in the "Uniform Access > Principle." > > Steven Sharp > sharp@cadence.com > > -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Vreugdenhil 503-685-0808 Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Mon Apr 28 07:23:01 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 28 2008 - 07:24:00 PDT