[sv-ec] How does static lifetime interact with virtual methods?

If one has:
      class C;
          virtual task static t(int x); endtask
      endclass

      class D extends C;
          task static t(int x); endtask
      endclass

How should one think about "this" and "x" in terms of the two
bodies of "t"?  Is "this" implicitly automatic?  Is there
one "x" or two?  Should simultaneous calls to "t" in C
be able to interfere with the value of "x" in the "t" in D?

More to the point -- is this even a sensible thing to permit
in the LRM?  It seems to me that from first principles, the
concept of "virtual" and "static lifetime" are at least
somewhat contradictory.  We could clarify the rules, but
is it really worthwhile?

I'd be happy to make it illegal to have static lifetime for a
virtual method.

It is also arguable (though less strange) that "static lifetime"
should really only be permitted for class static routines.  You
do run into some oddness with "this" if that isn't the case --
i.e. is "this" really a static lifetime implicit formal or is it
automatic and the rest static?

I'd be happy to restrict static lifetime to static methods as
well.

I'll enter a mantis item on this and will add a proposal if people
are in favor of one or both of the restrictions.

Gord.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Vreugdenhil                                503-685-0808
Model Technology (Mentor Graphics)                gordonv@model.com


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