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

That was the suggestion I was looking for so we can move forward. I've
uploaded a new proposal.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Sharp [mailto:sharp@cadence.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 11:35 AM
> To: sharp@cadence.com; sv-ec@eda.org; Mehdi.Mohtashemi@synopsys.com;
Rich,
> Dave
> Subject: Re: [sv-ec] RE: id 185, svdb 2342 static constructor
> 
> 
> >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.