RE: [sv-ec] RE: Mantis 2358 - isssue 168

Mark,

 

What does "using the super"  mean?

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Mark Hartoog
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 4:08 PM
To: Bresticker, Shalom; Mark Hartoog; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: [sv-ec] RE: Mantis 2358 - isssue 168

 

Shalom,

 

Section 8.14 says:

 

When using the super within new, super.new shall be the first statement
executed in the constructor. This

is because the superclass shall be initialized before the current class
and, if the user code does not provide an

initialization, the compiler shall insert a call to super.new
automatically.

 

I don't see what is unclear about this.  It says that if the user
doesn't have a call to super.new, it is automatically called.

 

If the super class constructor requires arguments, obviously the
compiler cannot insert a call automatically. Section 8.16 says:

 

If the initialization method of the superclass requires arguments, there
are two choices: to always supply the

same arguments or to use the super keyword.

 

I guess this does not say it is illegal not to do one of these choices.
I could see adding a sentence to say when the super class constructor
requires arguments, it is illegal to not specify them in one of the two
ways. 

 

From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com] 
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 11:33 PM
To: Mark Hartoog; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: RE: Mantis 2358 - isssue 168

 

Mark,

 

2358 brings up a number of points that need clarification. This is just
one of them, and not even the point that was the main point of the
ballot comment.

 

I would change the wording of your proposal, but that is a secondary
issue. It still leaves ambiguous the following points from the Mantis,
for example:

 

LRM is unclear where a user-defined sub-class constructor automatically
calls super.new() if it does not contain such a call explicitly. The
answer is yes, but a statement such as "The default constructor first
calls its base class constructor" can be interpreted as saying that it
is true only for default sub-class constructors. In fact, one company
published an incorrect interpretation.

What happens if super.new() requires arguments, but they are not
specified in the extends statement, and the sub-class new() implicitly
calls super.new()? (Probably a compilation error.)

If the extends statement specifies the super.new arguments, e.g., class
EtherPacket extends Packet(5);, may a sub-class user-defined constructor
contain an explicit call to super.new()? If so, what is the syntax, with
or without arguments, super.new() or super.new(5)?

(Your proposal says that the last option would not be legal, but still
leaves ambiguous whether super.new is implicitly called in a
user-defined constructor, whether an explicit call to super.new is
legal, and what is the syntax if so.)

 

Regards,

Shalom

Shalom Bresticker 
Intel LAD DA 
Jerusalem, Israel 
+972  2 589 6582 (office) 
+972 54 721 1033 (cell) 

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Mark Hartoog
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 4:18 AM
To: sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: [sv-ec] Mantis 2358 - isssue 168

I discussed this issue with Arturo. He feels that the situation in
Mantis 2358 should be an error.

 

I have added a proposal to 2358 to make it an error. The proposal is:

 

At the end of section 8.16, Chaining constructors, add the following
paragraph: 

 

It shall be an error for a derived class to specify the arguments to the
base class constructor both when the class is extended and with a
super.new(...) call in the constructor.


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

believed to be clean. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited
 
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

-- 
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.