RE: [sv-ec] super.T, this.T and variable_handle.T

I like Daniel's idea. It should be sufficient to permit access to base
class declared types in the case
the type name is redefined in the derived class. There is no need to
allow this.T or handle.T
and it looks very strange.
 
super::T is even more appealing, since super refer to the base class
datatype.
Francoise
       '
 



________________________________

	From: Daniel Mlynek [mailto:daniel.mlynek@aldec.com] 
	Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 9:01 AM
	To: Francoise Martinolle; sv-ec@eda-stds.org
	Subject: RE: [sv-ec] super.T, this.T and variable_handle.T
	
	
	I understand the idea of allowing super.T - because super is not
a handle - this just inform tool that base class item should be
referenced. Maybe when super was introduced it would be better to use
other syntax ie super::. This would not confuse user suggesting that
super is smth like handle.
	 
	But allowing this.T 
	or ust handle.T
	which both are handles is for me too much. 
	 
	DANiel

________________________________

	From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org
[mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Francoise Martinolle
	Sent: 27 sierpnia 2008 14:49
	To: sv-ec@server.eda-stds.org
	Subject: [sv-ec] super.T, this.T and variable_handle.T
	
	
	If we allow super.T or this.T to access a typedef or a type
parameter in a class
	should'nt we also allow to use a class variable prefix to access
them too?
	 
	module m;

	class c;

	     typedef int t;

	endclass

	c v;

	v.t x;    // class variable prefix

	endmodule

	 

	-- 
	This message has been scanned for viruses and 
	dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/>
, and is 
	believed to be clean. 


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