RE: [sv-ec] Abstract classes and virtual methods

>From: "Rich, Dave" <Dave_Rich@mentor.com>

>Maybe we need to
>say the presence of a default needs to match, but not the expression
>itself.

A little thought shows that this part is required.  The caller can
leave out an argument only when there is a default.  How can the
compiler determine whether it is legal for the caller to leave out
an argument to a virtual method, when it doesn't know which
implementation will be called until runtime, unless all of them
must match?  Surely you aren't suggesting that this be a runtime
check?

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com