Mark Hartoog wrote: > I think this looks good. The only comment I have is the second sentence > in the second paragraph of the 8.23 changes reads > > "The return type of an out-of-block declaration shall be specified > prior to the out-of-block indication for the method." > > I know what you are trying to say, but it seems confusing the way > it is worded. Yes, I struggled with that a bit. I think that the change to "shall" from the original "must" actually made this a bit worse. Perhaps it would be better to just drop the sentence. Gord. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On >> Behalf Of Gordon Vreugdenhil >> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 2:15 PM >> To: SV_EC List >> Subject: [sv-ec] parameterized class "::" operations and >> out-of-block declarations >> >> I've uploaded a proposal for Mantis 1857 that I believe >> captures the agreed upon behaviors from the last name >> resolution meeting. >> Please review asap and let me know if there are any >> substantive problems. >> >> 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. >> >> -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 19 11:06:00 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 19 2007 - 11:06:28 PST