Re: [sv-ec] RE: [sv-bc] 12.4.5 Optional argument list - question

<Resending to the SVEC alias since it seems to have bounced for many people>

Neil




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [sv-ec] RE: [sv-bc] 12.4.5 Optional argument list - question
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 21:22:24 +0300
From: Bresticker, Shalom <shalom.bresticker@intel.com>
To: Brad Pierce <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com>, sv-bc@eda.org
CC: sv-ec@eda.org

Ah, so simply the word "class" is missing from the last sentence, before
the word "function":

"It shall be illegal to omit the parenthesis in a
directly recursive nonvoid function method call that is not
hierarchically qualified."

I'll file a Mantis.

Side note: Although "nonvoid" is used in the world, I personally find it
jarring, and prefer "non-void", which is also more common.

Shalom


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org]
On
> Behalf Of Brad Pierce
> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 9:01 PM
> To: sv-bc@server.eda.org
> Cc: sv-ec@server.eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-bc] 12.4.5 Optional argument list - question
> 
> These issues were resolved by Mantis item 93.  One part of the
> resolution was the addition of the following footnote 36 on tf_call --
> 
>   It shall be illegal to omit the parentheses in a tf_call unless the
> subroutine is a task, void function or class method.  If the
subroutine
> is a non-void class function method, it shall be illegal to omit the
> parentheses if the call is directly recursive.
> 
> -- Brad


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------