>From: "Bresticker, Shalom" <shalom.bresticker@intel.com> >Assuming that the intent was to disallow a call to super.new at all in this case, I would reword as follows: > >"If the arguments are specified at the time the class is extended, it shall be an error to have an explicit super.new call in the subclass constructor. In this case, the compiler shall insert a call to super.new automatically, as specified in 8.14." With this wording, I would be concerned that "this case" would be interpreted as talking about the error case where there is an explicit super.new call. That is the most recently described case. So it would be saying that the compiler inserts the call only when there was an error because of an explicit call. Even if you ignore that intervening case and assume it is talking about the earlier case where the arguments were specified, it is inaccurate. The compiler inserts the call if there was no explicit super.new call, regardless of whether arguments were specified when the class was extended. If no arguments were specified, that inserted call just doesn't have any arguments. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Apr 29 15:07:08 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 29 2009 - 15:07:16 PDT