Re: [sv-ec] super.T

The role of "super" is not really clear in the LRM.  The LRM
talks about it in terms of just a parent class access prefix but
the grammer production uses "implicit_class_handle".  Clearly
a class handle cannot be a type prefix (a class type can be
via :: but not a handle).  However, such an interpretation
would be pretty unfriendly in that there wouldn't be a way of
getting to super class types without explicit type naming
if super.T was disallowed.  Given that, and given that there
aren't any type resolution issues involved, I would take a
permissive approach on this one and consider super.T legal
as a type.  One can clearly argue against that interpretation
given the lack of precision in the LRM, but I think there are
good user-driven reasons to adopt such an interpretation and
no technical reason to not do so.

Gord.


Francoise Martinolle wrote:
> Is super.T refering to a type parameter using legal?
>  
>  
> According to the LRM super can be used with class members.
> The BNF says that super can be followed by a hierarchical identifier select.
> Is a type parameter considered a type, or is it considered an object?
> If it is considered a type, I suppose that you are not allowed to have 
> hierarchical identifiers but is super.<smthg> considered
> a hierarchical identifier? This is not clear in the LRM.
>  
> Francoise
>        '
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, 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.