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

I'm not sure that allowing explicitly declared static constructors would enable (or their lack disable) the forms you envision. The truth is that constructor are already somewhat like static methods - they are not called using a handle.

As far as the forms you list, I believe they don't all (yet) exist, but they would be a nice addition (I believe Steve Sharp had proposed something along these lines in the past). BTW, I understand they first two a = B::new(); and b = new(); - I don't know what the last one is supposed to be. But particularly, a = B::new(); would be a very nice addition to the language - as would be return-type covariant method overrides. But I guess we have to leave something for the future.

            Arturo

From: Rich, Dave [mailto:Dave_Rich@mentor.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 11:12 PM
To: Arturo Salz; Mehdi Mohtashemi; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: 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.