> "super.new" must be "first". What constitutes "first"? yes; for example, is this OK? I can easily see why it might not be, but I can also see why I might wish to do it: class C; function new(int N); ... class D extends C; function new(int N); super.new( N>0 ? N : 0 ); ... > > c = D::new(); > > Is there any fundamental problem with this that I've missed? > > I don't have too much concern over this. But I had not thought about Dave Rich's point: > [DR] Except that the "this" handle is not available > in static methods, and needs to be available in a constructor. Thanks -- Jonathan Bromley, Consultant DOULOS - Developing Design Know-how VHDL * Verilog * SystemC * e * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project Services Doulos Ltd. Church Hatch, 22 Market Place, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 1AW, UK Tel: +44 (0)1425 471223 Email: jonathan.bromley@doulos.com Fax: +44 (0)1425 471573 Web: http://www.doulos.com This message may contain personal views which are not the views of Doulos Ltd., unless specifically stated. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Jun 25 11:05:42 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 25 2008 - 11:05:54 PDT