I have to agree with Dave on this one. The null handle will be caught if the user tries to access a property or method, but this copy is just replicating the object. Since the handle refers to a null object, the shallow copy should just return a null. Don't add extra error cases to the system, instead just pass the value through. /********************************************************* Chris Spear Verification Specialist Synopsys, Inc. Phone 508-263-8114 .. __@ 377 Simarano Drive Fax 508-263-8123 _`\<,_ Marlboro, MA 01752 USA Cell 508-254-7223 .. (*)/ (*) Spear_ f rom _Synopsys.com http://Chris.Spear.net/systemverilog Author of "SystemVerilog for Verification" *********************************************************/ -----Original Message----- From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Arturo Salz Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 4:26 PM To: Rich, Dave; William Paulsen; sv-ec@eda-stds.org Subject: RE: [sv-ec] A question about copy constructors Yes. I do have a reason: The copy constructor implies that an object should be copied. Surely, the relaxed semantics can be implemented, but it is likely to result in an error further down when it's much harder to catch. Why create such hurdles for developers? Arturo -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Jan 18 14:06:57 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 14:07:08 PST