RE: [sv-ec] A question about copy constructors

From: Chris Spear <Chris.Spear_at_.....>
Date: Thu Jan 18 2007 - 14:06:03 PST
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