Re: [sv-ec]E-mail Vote (part 2)

From: Don Mills <drmills98_at_.....>
Date: Tue May 01 2007 - 14:07:07 PDT


1500  _x__ Yes   ___ No  
1556  ___ Yes   __x_ No
I do not see how adding the "static" declaration will remove confusion of initialization occuring only once at time zero.  The variable is already static.  But I will change my vote if the wording is changed from

"However, an explicit static keyword shall be required..."

to

"However, an explicit static keyword may be used..."

In other words - allow users to add the keyword if they want to, but they are not forced to use it.  This will also maintain backword compatibility.


Perhaps I can propose a variation of this matis item:
Currently we can declare automatic variables in static regions (within limits) and static variables in automatic regions (within limits).  Maybe what we need to allow is for any static variable in static regions to be denoted as such whether or not they have an initialization specified in their declaration.  The same with automatic variable in an automatic region.  This addtional declaration syntax should be optional but allowed since it can help to add readability to the code. 

Jonathan noted that there are so many holes regarding static and automatic declarations that maybe this type of declarations can help uses get a handle on what is static and what is automatic.

Just my two cents worth.


1580  _x__ Yes   ___ No
1608  _x__ Yes   ___ No
1609  _x__ Yes   ___ No 
1612  _x__ Yes   ___ No 
1715  ____ Yes   ___ No   __X__abstain

==========================================================
Don Mills
LCDM Engineering     (Logic, Coding, & Design Methodology) 
mills@lcdm-eng.com                        www.lcdm-eng.com
==========================================================

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. Received on Tue May 1 14:07:21 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 01 2007 - 14:07:45 PDT