Steven Sharp wrote > > 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. I don't believe the behavior of local constructors is undefined. Using the existing rules, a constructor declared as local would not be callable by any non-local method, which includes the extended class' constructor attempting to call super.new(). As Dave pointed out earlier, this behavior is often desirable for singleton classes, which are commonly designed so they cannot be extended. Hence, no need to resolve the conflict - attempting to extend a class with a local constructor would trigger an error in the constructor of the extended class. Arturo -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Fri May 8 00:00:36 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 08 2009 - 00:00:45 PDT