Re: [sv-bc] E-mail Ballot Due Monday, June 8, 8AM PDT

From: Gordon Vreugdenhil <gordonv_at_.....>
Date: Mon Jun 08 2009 - 07:47:59 PDT
Cliff,

I had considered your wording suggestion almost exactly when I
wrote the proposal and rejected the wording since an "enum"
is also integral and wouldn't be a legal override.  I played
around with the wording a bit at the time -- I thought about

    ...the evaluation of p2 shall be illegal unless a parameter
       override with a type compatible with the default value occurs.

and a few variants of the same but ended up with the more
general wording in the proposal since I didn't like any of the
other versions.

So, I would object to the "integral" suggestion but would be
fine with other suggestions that would be correct and everyone
prefers.

Gord.

Clifford E. Cummings wrote:
[...]>
> WAS:
> Similarly, since T2 requires an instantiation override, the evaluation 
> of p2 shall only occur with the type defined by the parameter override.
> 
> PROPOSED:
> Similarly, since T2 requires an instantiation override, the evaluation 
> of p2 shall be illegal unless a parameter override with an integral type 
> occurs.
> 
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Jun 8 07:50:10 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 08 2009 - 07:50:25 PDT