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

From: Rich, Dave <Dave_Rich_at_.....>
Date: Sat Feb 04 2006 - 00:49:10 PST
I have updated the proposal to incorporate the feedback from the email
reflector. http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001308.  I
have attached a version with markups from 1800 to this for your
convenience. 

There seems to be two remaining issues that need consensus.

1. What level of matching defaults is needed for virtual methods? The
current proposal only requires the presence of a default to match for
each argument, not their expressions. I think a matching expression is
unnecessary and not very useful.

2. The syntax for declaring a method without an implementation. The
current proposal reuses the syntax for out-of-class body, which is what
Vera does. Some have suggested that this might be visually ambiguous,
but I think since you have to mark the class as 'virtual', it is
unlikely that you will be providing out-of-class bodies at the same
time.

I may not be able to make most of Monday's meeting, but I think #2 is
very critical because a lot of class libraries are being written as this
very moment. Let's try to reach consensus on this issue via e-mail ASAP.

Thanks,

Dave

David Rich
Verification Technologist
Design Verification & Test Division
Mentor Graphics Corporation
dave_rich@mentor.com
Office:   408 487-7206
Cell:     510 589-2625



Received on Sat Feb 4 00:49:24 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Feb 04 2006 - 00:53:20 PST