Steven Sharp wrote: [...] > Default values should match also. This allows compilers to resolve the > default values at compile time for efficiency, if desired. It also > avoids possible confusion about what default value is being used. Hmm - it isn't clear to me that for interesting defaults this is possible anyway. Consider a parameterized class that overrides a virtual function with an expression that depends on the class parameterization. Very useful, but how could one determine equivalence at compile time for anything other than a statically typed, statically valued default? It seems that we should either require that only the first definition of a virtual function is permitted to provide a default, or that general changes are permitted. I'm in favor of the latter since it is likely to be more useful in the context of parameterized classes and non-trivial type/value relationships. Gord. > Steven Sharp > sharp@cadence.com > > -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Vreugdenhil 503-685-0808 Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.comReceived on Fri Jan 20 16:51:56 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jan 20 2006 - 16:53:06 PST