Mantis 1384 has been opened for this issue. Neil Neil Korpusik wrote On 03/14/06 11:04,: > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Received on Tue Mar 14 13:44:25 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 14 2006 - 13:44:34 PST