>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