Brad Pierce wrote: > In http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-bc/hm/9153.html Gordon Vreugdenhil writes: > >> A "let" [...] is similar to a macro (other than a few of the >> name binding aspects and the fact that the let definition name >> is in some scope). > > Another difference is that a let can't use the `` directive to construct identifiers. > > By the way, why can't a "let" be declared directly within a class scope? > > -- Brad Primarily so that there are no arguments as to whether the let identifier is inherited (which it wouldn't be). There are also serious issues about how that would interact with class parameterization (which is inherently elab time) and things like "::" referencing. Overall, there were enough issues and it was late enough in the process that leaving the definition as being a fairly obvious binding early in the flow was deemed to be the best approach. Gord. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Vreugdenhil 503-685-0808 Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Jan 22 15:09:28 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 22 2009 - 15:09:40 PST