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

Hi, 

> >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.

It does not say "only" and it does point to 8.14, but I'll reword.

 
> 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.

Again, it is not inaccurate because it does not say "only", but I'll reword anyway:

"If the arguments are specified at the time the class is extended, the subclass constructor shall not contain a super.new call. The compiler shall insert a call to super.new automatically, as whenever the sublcass constructor does not contain a super.new call (see 8.14)".

Better?

Thanks,
Shalom
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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, and is
believed to be clean.