[sv-ec] id 185, svdb 2342 static constructor

 

id 185, svdb 2342    _____ YES   __X__ No

http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2342  

 

I only object to the limitation that the constructor may not be static
-why not? And, would there be a semantically observable difference
between a static versus a non-static constructor? I don't believe there
is such a difference. I will change my vote to yes if that limitation is
removed.

 

[DR] Would allowing an explicitly declared static constructor open up
the door for static method references?

 

class A; endclass;

class B extends a; endclass

 

A a

B b;

 

a = B::new();

 

b = new();

 

a = A::new b;

 

 

Or do these forms already exist?

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

 

 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is

believed to be clean. 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.