This is existing language from the LRM. The section talks about the super keyword, so I assume it means "using the super keyword". From: Rich, Dave [mailto:Dave_Rich@mentor.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 7:13 PM To: Mark Hartoog; Bresticker, Shalom; sv-ec@eda.org Subject: 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.Received on Mon Apr 27 20:19:17 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 27 2009 - 20:19:49 PDT