>I think that what you hope to have (or expect to have) is >that given "obj.vintf.a.b.c" that "a.b.c" will be treated >as a hierarchical reference *relative to* the actual >interface instance referenced by obj.vintf. > >The only time in which you would care is if "a.b.c" ended >up resolving upwards with respect to the actual instance. I would NEVER expect this to resolve to an "a" that is not directly inside the object referenced by "obj.vintf". Upward searches are only for the starting point of a path, never within them. Gord is still tentative about stating this, because it is a fairly recent realization. I state it as (what I thought was) an obvious fact about how it works. The description of upwards refernces in the LRM does not talk about upward searching except for the scope_name at the start of the path. The previous subsection describes the full path name as the concatenation of the names of the scopes that contain it, separated by dots. From context, it is clear that this goes from outermost to innermost in sequence. That and the fact that it is stated to be unique does not allow for any backtracking within the name. The section talks about a name starting from the top. It also talks about one starting from the point in the hierarchy where the name is used (which is just a degenerate case of an upward name, described later). Later there is a description of an upward search for a scope name matching the first component in a name. But nowhere is there any suggestion that a name after a dot can be anything but a branch directly inside the scope of the previous name. Perhaps it is more obvious when you already know the answer before reading the text :-) I don't think that Jonathan expects there to be any upward search from the interface referenced by the virtual interface. He is just pointing out that this is a transition from a select of a struct member back into selection of design hierarchy. When Jonathan says that we are reverting to hierarchical resolution, he means that we are reverting to resolving to nested static scopes that may include instance hierarchy. When Gord hears "start all over again with hierarchical resolution", he assumes that means doing the thing that is most different about hierarchical resolution of a path. That is the upward search at the beginning of it (and which he apparently assumed until recently could occur at any point within it). Because he has paid so much attention to this aspect, it is the first thing he thinks of when someone says anything about hierarchical resolution. But I don't think that this is what Jonathan is suggesting. 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 Tue Sep 25 10:17:42 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 25 2007 - 10:17:58 PDT