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