Arturo Salz wrote: > I agree with Mike that the one problem is that users have no mechanism > for explicitly referring to the enclosing context. I believe such an > enhancement would be a worthwhile addition that preserves backward > compatibility and user intent. I like Jonathan's idea of re-using the > "local" keyword for this purpose, however, I'd propose we use a more > regular syntax for resolving name: Either local::name or local.name (my > preference is for the former). > > I'd also like to point out that it is currently easy for users to > explicitly refer to the properties of the object being randomized by > simply using the same name as the object handle, as in: > > obj.randomize() with { obj.a < obj.b; } > > Since the handle name is local to the scope, the writer has complete > control over its name - as long as it is not the name of property that > happens to be a handle, this will always bind to the object's > properties. But that is the kicker -- how does one *guarantee* that the "obj" is NOT a matching property? I can live with "local::name" but I really don't like having to repeat that on each use within the constraint. But it users are Ok with that, fine, let's act on that and move on. 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 Mon Nov 5 10:33:16 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 05 2007 - 10:33:29 PST