[sv-ec] RE: [sv-bc] Question on pure virtual function

Yes, there has been a discussion of this on the sv-ec, where I am moving
this discussion to. A forward typedef presents no more difficulties
beyond a base defined as a type parameter. (1500/2142)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org]
On
> Behalf Of Steven Sharp
> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 11:59 AM
> To: spsaha@cal.interrasystems.com; Vreugdenhil, Gordon
> Cc: sv-bc@server.eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Question on pure virtual function
> 
> 
> >Well, there generally isn't a very good reason to have the
> >base class defined after the derived class in the same section
> >of code so I would consider that to be at least bad style.
> 
> That "at least" suggests that you might consider it to be invalid
code.
> Has there been discussion of whether it should be illegal to derive
> from a base class for which you have only seen a forward declaration?
> 
> Steven Sharp
> sharp@cadence.com
> 

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