Re: [sv-ec] Mantis 1857 rationale - extern method types for parameterized classes

Francoise,

Sorry, I was sloppy in my wording. Of course we have to include any new
declarations. And true, they might just as easily cause name collisions.
Yet these collisions do not seem to happen when the method is defined inside
the class. So some rule is at work to prevent a collision (a related
question is "How would one access the outer T?").

I am trying to propose an equivalent rule where template parameters take
precedence when defining a method body from that template, regardless of
whether the definition is inside the class declaration or external.

> Using "::T" would be unique, and I would rather trying  to use consistent
rules in the LRM and not  inventing
> new ones. It is already too  complex.

Well, we could make "::" a global rule as a way to disambiguate multiple
typedefs, so it could be consistent.

In this case, the LRM is clearly broken.  I've been through very similar
issues with the development of the C++ language and feel strongly that new
syntax should be used only as a last resort. The fact that the code works
inside tells me that we can probably make a rule to make it work externally.

Now, I will admit that I do not have a long history on  Verilog language
issues, so I will defer if the group prefers adding syntax to solve the
issue.

Take Care,
Mike


On 6/18/07, Francoise Martinolle <fm@cadence.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
> We cannot do either of your alternatives.
> An extern method body must be able to refer  to
> declarations which appear between the "endclass" and  the beginning of the
body of the extern  method.
> Consequently you cannot say that the method body is as  if it were defined
inside the class.  Gordon
> provided some really good examples a few months ago  which make this
alternative not  possible.
>
> Right now there is no provision for hierarchically  refer to a type except
in some cases (interface  types).
> Using "::T" would be unique, and I would rather trying  to use consistent
rules in the LRM and not  inventing
> new ones. It is already too  complex.
> I personally like the new prototype  syntax.
>
> Francoise
>         '
>
>
>
>    ________________________________
   From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org    [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Mike Mintz
> Sent:    Monday, June 18, 2007 11:06 AM
> To: Jonathan Bromley
> Cc:    Gordon Vreugdenhil; SV_EC List
> Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Mantis 1857    rationale - extern method types for
parameterized classes
>
>
>
> Gord,
>
> >In the first case, the name "T" is visible in the    scope
> of the definition (i.e. the "typedef bit T") so that is
> the "T"    that will be selected.  Clearly that is incorrect.
>
>
> This is    the incorrect behavior. Can we say that a scoped method body
(such as this) is    within the scope of the declaration (for name
resolution purposes) ?
>
> If    not, what about saying that the unchanged code means the templated
param, and    that, if the bit T is wanted, it needs to have a "::" to say
the outer scope?
>
> My feeling is that a rule is better than syntax.
>
> Take    Care,
> Mike
>
>
> On 6/18/07, Jonathan    Bromley <    jonathan.bromley@doulos.com> wrote:

> > Gord,
> >
> > I      absolutely concur with the motivation and solution.  As long
as
> > you and all the heavy-duty compiler folk are happy that the
> > solution      is bombproof, I'm happy.
> > --
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> > -- This message has      been scanned for viruses anddangerous content
by MailScanner, and isbelieved      to be clean.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> This message has been    scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.

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