RE: [sv-bc] Mantis 1602: task/function default inout arguments

Regarding task/function output arguments,

I understood the expressed positions as follows:

Gord: favors allowing defaults for outputs, opposes allowing to leave
off output unless a default is defined.

Steven Sharp: had said that customers had wanted to be able to leave off
outputs (without a default) in order to leave the output unconnected. I
understood that he did not see a big value in allowing defaults for
outputs.

Jonathan: against allowing defaults for outputs. Did not express a
position about allowing outputs to be unconnected.

Greg: position unclear.

Brad: opposes defaults for outputs as low ROI.

That's not enough people to talk about a consensus position yet.

Personally, I am neutral on the subject. 

Shalom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bresticker, Shalom 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:21 AM
> To: Bresticker, Shalom; Greg Jaxon
> Cc: sv-bc@server.eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Mantis 1602: task/function default inout 
> arguments
> 
> So far, I think Gord favors treating inout defaults as 
> regular inout arguments, whereas Jonathan and Brad seem to 
> favor disallowing inout defaults (which would be a change 
> from the current LRM). Correct me if I misunderstood. 
> 
> I'm not relating to the discussion on output defaults and 
> leaving off output args.
> 
> > But what do you (and Brad and everyone else) think about 
> the questions 
> > on Mantis 1602?
> 
> Let's hear from others. That's not enough for a consensus yet.
> 
> I remind you that a third approach is to treat inout defaults 
> as inputs. I think Steven Sharp advocated that.
> 
> Thanks,
> Shalom
> 

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