Re: [sv-ec] Multiple inheritance

I strongly support Mantis 0001356: Multiple inheritance, as MI really
is the only _good_ way to merge multiple methodologies in a mixed
methodology environment.  That said, I strongly prefer Java interfaces
over C++ MI.  The restrictions of Java's interfaces have never seemed
all that limiting to me, and generally result in more well thought out
code.  C++ MI on the other hand, seems to produce poorly thought out
code that makes me work extra hours to debug.

You could utilize Java style interfaces, but use a more C++ style
syntax.  You could just declare a class as pure virtual.  However on
the extension side, I really like the "implements" keyword.  It makes
the intent blatantly obvious to the reader.  Just look at how much
more information "implements" conveys in this example:

// Using a more C++ style syntax
class P extends A, B, C;
endclass

// Using a more Java style syntax
class P extends A implements B, C;
endclass

Using the more C++-like style I need to look at the definitions of
A,B,C to know anything about these relationships.  Using the Java
style, I don't even need to see the class definitions to know that B
and C are interface (sorry, pure virtual class) definitions.

Regards,
Ryan

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Rich, Dave <Dave_Rich@mentor.com> wrote:
>
> Attached to http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1356
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Brad
> > Pierce
> > Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 1:02 PM
> > To: SV_EC List
> > Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Multiple inheritance
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > > I'll post the paper as soon as the conference is over.
> >
> > I'm eager to read it.
> > http://www.dvcon.org/events/eventdetails.aspx?id=108-2 When it's
> > available, please send us a link.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -- Brad
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Rich,
> > Dave
> > Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 8:00 AM
> > Cc: SV_EC List
> > Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Multiple inheritance
> >
> > This "tweet" was in response to a paper I presented at DVCon on multiple
> > inheritance. My proposal was to have the functionality of Java interfaces
> > using C++ syntax and limited semantics of virtual inheritance. (The
> > interface keyword is already in use for a different purpose). I'll post
> > the paper as soon as the conference is over.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> > David
> > > Jones
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 5:20 AM
> > > To: Brad Pierce
> > > Cc: SV_EC List
> > > Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Multiple inheritance
> > >
> > > Is the request for true multiple inheritance (C++ style) or for
> > > something similar to Java interfaces?
> > >
> > > The functionality of Java interfaces is relatively easy to define. But
> > > if we try to define the equivalent of C++ multiple inheritance
> > > (including multiple virtual inheritance) then the definition and
> > > implementation get a lot more complex.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Brad Pierce <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > According to Scott Roland, writing from DVCon, "Multiple inheritance
> > is
> > > the #1 SystemVerilog feature request for people with an OO background."
> > > >
> > > >    http://twitter.com/scott_roland/statuses/9584083182
> > > >
> > > > -- Brad
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > > > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > > > believed to be clean.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > > believed to be clean.
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > believed to be clean.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > believed to be clean.
> >
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>

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