This sentence has already been changed by mantis 1308 and approved by the 1800 WG. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org] On > Behalf Of Vreugdenhil, Gordon > Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 8:26 AM > To: mills@lcdm-eng.com > Cc: sv-ec@server.eda.org > Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Query related to virtual methods in a class > > > > Don Mills wrote: > [...] > > My conclusions are, none of the extended classes mid1, mid2, mid3 are > > required to included and define the virtual task declared in virtual > > base classes. > > > > The reason I am asking all this is due to a sentence in section 7.19: > > "In general, if an abstract class has any virtual methods, all of the > > methods must be overridden (and provided with a method body) for the > > subclass to be instantiated." > > Ah - this is the root of the problem. This sentence is confusing > due to the earlier state of the LRM where "pure" wasn't used. The > "method body" part of this used to be significant and isn't any > longer due to using "pure" to disambiguate a pure virtual from > a virtual with a trivial implementation. > > The sentence should be changed to something along the lines of the > following: > If an abstract class has any pure virtual methods, any class > extension shall either be abstract or shall override every > remaining pure virtual method with an implementation of the method. > > I threw in "remaining" to allude to the fact that intermediate > extensions (the "mid" classes) could have provided implementations > for some of the pure virtuals already. > > > This implies to me that the virtual methods must be defined in the > > extended classes. Ummm, that is not what I am seeing from simulation. > > > > (Note that I did not make any of the task "pure".) > > > Gord. > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Gordon Vreugdenhil 503-685-0808 > Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.comReceived on Fri Oct 20 08:47:08 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 20 2006 - 08:47:14 PDT