Re: [sv-ec] Q: Should local or protected members of a class be excluded from a bit stream cast.

8.17 Sreaming operators (pack/unpack)

This sub-clause discusses the use of << and >> on class handles. There
doesn't appear to be any mention of local or protected properties. The
same issue you are raising for a bit-stream cast seems to also be relevant
to the streaming operators.

Neil


Rich, Dave wrote On 03/14/06 07:15,:
> This raises a deeper issue. I thought the intent of local/protected was
> just linting. You should be able to remove the ‘local’ and ‘protected’
> keywords from code that previously compiled with no change in
> functionality. Therefore, bit-stream casts with local members should be
> illegal (unless you are bit streaming ‘this’).
> 
>  
> 
> The latter seems a bit harsh, but are there other places local/protected
> changes the semantics of an operator?
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Dave
> 
>  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *From:* owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Rich, Dave
> *Sent:* Monday, March 13, 2006 11:13 AM
> *To:* sv-ec@eda.org
> *Subject:* [sv-ec] Q: Should local or protected members of a class be
> excluded from a bit stream cast.
> 
>  
> 
> I think the answer should be yes, and this should be an erratum in the LRM.
> 
>  
> 
> David Rich
> Verification Technologist
> Design Verification & Test Division
> Mentor Graphics Corporation
> dave_rich@mentor.com
> Office:   408 487-7206
> Cell:     510 589-2625
> 
>  
> 

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Korpusik                                     Tel: 408-720-4852
Senior Staff Engineer                             Fax: 408-720-4850
Frontend Technologies - ASICs & Processors (FTAP)
Sun Microsystems
email: neil.korpusik@sun.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------