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