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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org]
On
> Behalf Of Steven Sharp
> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 8:51 PM
> To: sv-ec@server.eda.org; Mehdi.Mohtashemi@synopsys.com
> Subject: Re: [sv-ec] email ballot: response due by 1:00pm PDT
Wednesday May
> 13 2009
> >
> >
> >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.
> 
[DR] A local constructor is currently legal syntax and is well defined
by the text in 8.17 "A member identified as local is available only to
methods inside the class". Therefore, a local constructor cannot be
called from a derived class, effectively making the class inextensible.
The application of a local or protected constructor is beyond the scope
of the LRM, but well covered in object-oriented textbooks on design
patterns.

Removing the first sentence of the proposal would not make
local/protected constructors illegal, just less obvious. It would also
seem strange to mention the virtual/static class qualifiers without
mentioning the local/protect qualifiers.

Dave


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