Re: [sv-bc] 2097 comments/thoughts

>From: Gordon Vreugdenhil <gordonv@model.com>


>I think that it is pretty easy to argue that this should be
>allowed since "x" is really the same as a distinct variable
>declaration; it is primarily its name scoping that is different.
>
>So, two aspects -- first, does everyone agree that forcing a
>static class property should be legal?  Second, if you do
>agree, do we need to clarify that in 2097 (or elsewhere)?

From an implementation viewpoint, I agree that a static class
property is pretty much the same as a distinct static variable,
that happens to have a scope that is inside the class declaration.
From that implementation viewpoint, it isn't really part of the
class aggregate object.

However, the OO conceptual model is that it is part of the class
aggregate object.  It seems to me that this more relevant to the
issue than the implementation detains.

Also, there are some ways other than scoping that the static
properties are considered part of the class.  For example, a wait
on a class method can re-evaluate the class method to check for a
change any time a class property changes, and that presumably
includes static properties.

So I would say that a straightforward interpretation of the LRM
would be that the static class property is not an independent
variable, and cannot be forced.

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com


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