[Gord] > I don't see any reason to limit access to > value parameters via ".". [Arturo] > I appreciate what you're saying, but allowing parameters does create > several subtle issues that don't exist with const properties. For > example, a parameter cannot be passed by reference [...] Originally I was very much in favour of "handle.param" access to value parameters, but Arturo's argument about pass-by-ref seems to me to be compelling. Users who want to read parameter values via a handle can easily clone the parameter into a const or static const member. I also agree with Arturo that users will find it simpler to understand and remember the rule that class parameters (of any kind) must be accessed using ::. I'm also (again speaking as a user) slightly disappointed to see the proposal making all class [local]parameters be public. I can easily imagine a situation where I want to create some localparam in a class (so that I can use it to size arrays) but don't want client code to see it. On the other hand, this is something that could be added as an extension later, and it certainly isn't a show-stopper. Thanks -- Jonathan Bromley Consultant Doulos - Developing Design Know-how VHDL * Verilog * SystemVerilog * SystemC * PSL * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project Services Doulos Ltd. Church Hatch, 22 Market Place, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 1AW, UK Tel: + 44 (0)1425 471223 Email: jonathan.bromley@doulos.com Fax: +44 (0)1425 471573 http://www.doulos.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doulos Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company no. 3723454 Its registered office is 4 Brackley Close, Bournemouth International Airport, Christchurch, BH23 6SE, UK. This message may contain personal views which are not the views of Doulos, unless specifically stated. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed May 6 02:27:35 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 06 2009 - 02:28:38 PDT