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

I'm sorry but Steve is correct. The new method is called the constructor
precisely because it creates (i.e., allocates) the object. When someone
writes code such as:

	p = new q;

After executing that statement, the expectation is that p will contain a
handle to an object that has been created. The term new implies that a
*newly created* object has been initialized. If the source handle is
null, you cannot create an object copy so the only reasonable thing is
to issue an error. As I said before, relaxing the implementation only
leads to additional debug by users. If having a null object is OK then
that check should be done by the user prior to calling the copy
constructor.

	Arturo

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich, Dave [mailto:Dave_Rich@mentor.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:23 PM
To: Steven Sharp; paulsen@cadence.com; sv-ec@eda-stds.org;
Arturo.Salz@synopsys.COM
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] A question about copy constructors

A copy of nothing is nothing...

'nothing' IS created.


Nothing from Nothing leaves Nothing....
http://billypreston.lyrics.info/nothingfromnothing.html


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Sharp [mailto:sharp@cadence.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 4:21 PM
> To: sharp@cadence.com; paulsen@cadence.com; sv-ec@eda-stds.org;
> Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com; Rich, Dave
> Subject: RE: [sv-ec] A question about copy constructors
> 
> 
> >But you are making a copy of what the handle points to: nothing.
> 
> But 'new' creates an object.  If you do not create an object, then
> you have not performed the primary function of 'new'.  If you do
> create an object, then that object is not a copy of what the other
> handle points to.
> 
> Steven Sharp
> sharp@cadence.com


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.