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

From: Steven Sharp <sharp_at_.....>
Date: Wed Apr 29 2009 - 15:06:28 PDT
>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