The stream should always contain all of the properties. It is true that all instances of the class share static properties, but I don't see that as being a good reason to exclude those properties from the stream. I believe that it was always our intent to include all of the properties in the stream. Users of classes don't think of a static property as being part of the type. The values of static properties can vary. They aren't constants. Anything that is part of a type has a constantness to it. Perhaps subclause 7.8 is not as clear as it should be. I could see how one might come away with the impression that a static property is fixed to a particular value. The intent is for a static property to be a shared property, not a constant valued property. Neil Rich, Dave wrote On 03/17/06 09:21,: > And here's a related issue that I will tack onto a proposal for mantis > 1384. > > Should static members of class be part of the stream? The internal > discussion here was that they should not. A static member is part of the > type, not the instance. > > Dave > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Arturo Salz [mailto:Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com] >>Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 11:34 PM >>To: Neil.Korpusik@Sun.com; Rich, Dave >>Cc: sv-ec@eda.org >>Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Q: Should local or protected members of a class > > be > >>excluded from a bit stream cast. >> >>I tend to agree. I see no reason why the access granted to the > > streaming > >>operators should be any differently than for any other operator. >> >> Arturo >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of > > Neil > >>Korpusik >>Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 4:29 PM >>To: Rich, Dave >>Cc: sv-ec@eda.org >>Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Q: Should local or protected members of a class > > be > >>excluded from a bit stream cast. >> >>I agree with your position on this. >> >>Trying to access a protected or local property from outside the class >>should be illegal. Accessing a subset of the properties when using >><<, >> or a bitstream cast on a class handle is not appropriate. >>Instead, it should be considered an illegal attempt to access the >>local or protected properties. >> >> >>Neil >> >> >> >>Rich, Dave wrote On 03/14/06 16:14,: >> >>>I was hoping to gather some opinions on this. Without any other >> >>comment, >> >>>I will propose to make it illegal. >>> >>>Dave >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Neil Korpusik [mailto:Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM] >>>>Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 1:44 PM >>>>To: Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM >>>>Cc: Rich, Dave; sv-ec@eda.org >>>>Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Q: Should local or protected members of a class >>> >>>be >>> >>> >>>>excluded from a bit stream cast. >>>> >>>>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 >> >>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>-- >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>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 >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Fri Mar 17 13:40:24 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Mar 17 2006 - 13:40:35 PST