Re: [sv-ec] email ballot: response due by 1:00pm PDT Wednesday May 13 2009

>  mantis 2700   proposal 2700-2.pdf for
>
>   the two following ids.
>
>id  37  __X__ YES   _____ No
>
>id  38  __X__ YES   _____ No
>
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2700
>
>
>
>  mantis 2575 proposal  err_2575.pdf
>
>   for the following  ids
>
>id  50  __X__ YES   _____ No
>
>id  52  __X__ YES   _____ No
>
>id  59  __X__ YES   _____ No
>
>id  64  __X__ YES   _____ No
>
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2575
>

NOTE: in the last set of changes for section 8.22, the added text
"parameters, " is not shown in blue and might be missed by the editor.


>id 182, svdb 2514    __X__ YES   _____ No
>
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2514
>
>
>
>id 183, svdb 2510    __X__ YES   _____ No
>
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2510
>
>
>
>id 185, svdb 2342    _____ YES   __X__ No
>
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2342

I oppose this proposal because it explicitly allows the constructor to be
declared "local".  The behavior of this has not been defined.  The class
could be extended.  The derived class constructor would normally call the
super.new(), implicitly or explicitly.  But a local method cannot be called
from the derived class.  It is not clear how this conflict is supposed to
be resolved.


>id 186, svdb 2288    __X__ YES   _____ No
>
>http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2288


NOTE: The proposal has a typo, where it says 7.10.& instead of 7.10.7.
Hopefully this will not confuse the editor.


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

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com


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