Re: [sv-bc] Ambiguity in function prototype parsing

From: Gordon Vreugdenhil <gordonv_at_.....>
Date: Tue Nov 15 2005 - 06:49:34 PST
Right; my option 1 would require that only in the case where the
lone identifier was a visible type.  We could simply always require
formals to be named.  Since SV allows name association, it
may make sense to go that route (similar to the issue of whether
a virtual override matches if the names differ).

Gord.

Steven Sharp wrote:
> Requiring that prototypes explicitly name the formals would also avoid
> the problem.
> 
> Steven Sharp
> sharp@cadence.com
> 

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Vreugdenhil                                503-685-0808
Model Technology (Mentor Graphics)                gordonv@model.com
Received on Tue Nov 15 06:50:03 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 15 2005 - 06:52:40 PST