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

From: Arturo Salz <Arturo.Salz_at_.....>
Date: Thu May 07 2009 - 23:38:16 PDT
Fair enough. I concede the point.

        Arturo

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Sharp [mailto:sharp@cadence.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 7:57 PM
To: Mehdi.Mohtashemi@synopsys.COM; sv-ec@eda.org; Arturo.Salz@synopsys.COM
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] email ballot: response due by 1:00pm PDT Wednesday May 13 2009


>From: Arturo Salz <Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com>

>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.


Absolutely there would be an observable difference!  A static method cannot
access any non-static members of the class.  For a constructor, that pretty
much renders it incapable of doing its job.


Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Thu May 7 23:46:54 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 07 2009 - 23:47:45 PDT