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

From: Steven Sharp <sharp_at_.....>
Date: Fri May 08 2009 - 11:34:51 PDT
>From: "Rich, Dave" <Dave_Rich@mentor.com>

>[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.

I have no problem with allowing local and having it make the class
inextensible.  I just think that this needs to be specified explicitly
in the LRM.  I don't agree that this is already well-defined by the
text in the LRM.  I can come up with other interpretations that I
consider plausible from the text.

Rather than continuing to argue about what I consider plausible, why
not just add a sentence to the proposal clarifying this?  If the
proposal says that a class with a local constructor cannot be extended,
then I will be happy to vote in favor of it.


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 Fri May 8 11:35:54 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 08 2009 - 11:36:31 PDT