Re: [sv-ec] rules for overriding virtual method

>From: "Daniel Mlynek" <daniel.mlynek@aldec.com>

>"Later, when subclasses override virtual methods, they shall follow the
>prototype exactly by having matching return types and matching argument
>names, types, and directions. It is not necessary to have matching default
>expressions, but the presence of a default shall match."
> 
>I'm not sure if statement : matching type in above context was used to refer
>term defined im lrm as "matching type" chapter 6.22 or just for english
>meaning on this word. My doubts are because in one sentence there are used :
>mathchig name, matching type, matching direction. etc.

I think the intent was just the English meaning.  As you say, the term
"matching" is also used for the name and direction, so it is clearly just
the English meaning in those cases.  Given the parallel sentence structure,
there is no reason to interpret "matching" as having a different meaning
when applied to the type, even though there is a specific technical term
"matching type".

As Gord says, the original intent was that they had to be identical.  Even
two different typedef names for the same type would not be acceptable.  I
would expect that a class scope reference to a typedef would be acceptable
in an out-of-block declaration, as long as it is still referring to the
exact same typedef that was used in the prototype.  But that falls into the
fuzzy area that he mentioned.

He may also be correct that implementations are not being that strict.


>Maybe it should be rewrtiten-reworded to make it clear.

Perhaps, but I don't think it will affect what implementations are doing.
 

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.