Re: [sv-ec] Re: Feedback from Freescale on name resolution issues

From: Gordon Vreugdenhil <gordonv_at_.....>
Date: Tue Oct 23 2007 - 06:48:47 PDT
Jonathan Bromley wrote:
> I'm continuing to worry away at this (name binding
> in inline constraints) because I believe we have a
> fairly important usability problem here, and a real
> opportunity to resolve a good fix.
[...]

> (7) seems to me to be a useful compromise.  It could also
> be retrofitted to the array-method syntax, allowing users
> to work around a (much less problematic) name conflict that
> can exist there with the current "item" syntax.  And it has
> the advantage that it is a completely different syntactic
> form than the present one, clearly flagging the different
> behaviour.

I would be Ok with this syntax although I don't really
think it is necessary.  If "item" is being used as a class
member then "item.item" works and is such a unique special
case that I really don't think that it would be that
confusing, particularly if the LRM addresses it directly.
There is the minor backwards compatibility issue but I
really don't think that alone requires us to make the
change to (7).

In any case, I agree with Jonathan that this really must
be fixed, so I'd certainly support either "item." or
the proposal in (7) above.

I also agree that the ".name" form would be far too error
prone and easily misread and I would object to that syntax.

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.
Received on Tue Oct 23 06:49:21 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 23 2007 - 06:49:30 PDT