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