Francoise, this looks pretty good to me. Thanks for working through the details there. One detail lies in the grammar -- a constant_primary only admits a ps_parameter_identifier which does allow the syntactic form name::name but where the LRM uses package_name to indicate intent for the prefix. Ideally I think that should be fixed in the grammar. We might also consider explicitly stating that class_type::parameter is a constant expression. That likely isn't needed with the grammar change, but it makes the asymmetry with the "this." and "super." more explicit and obviously intentional. Gord. Francoise Martinolle wrote: > Attached is a proposal for specifying access to class parameters, type > parameters and local class parameters. > > Mantis is not working so I have not uploaded the proposal. > > Francoise > ' > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is > believed to be clean. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Vreugdenhil 503-685-0808 Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Fri May 1 13:54:48 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 01 2009 - 13:55:15 PDT