On 6/2/2011 7:35 PM, Mehdi Mohtashemi wrote:
> 1) Mantis 3278 ___Yes _X_No
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=3278
> [virtual method type rules]
> [proposal: 3278-v3.pdf]
I agree that the wording that Arturo objected to is
not terribly clear but I don't like Arturo's rewording
either. Dropping "function" makes the sentence apply
to all methods which clearly it cannot since tasks
don't have return types.
> (2) Mantis 3279 _X_Yes ___No
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=3279
> CLOSE: [already merged into 3278]
>
> (3) Mantis 3293 ___Yes X__No
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=3293
> [Clarify $cast behaviour on class handles]
> [proposal: Mantis_3293_proposal_v3.pdf]
I'm not comfortable with the following wording:
However, the $cast function may be used to assign a superclass
handle to a subclass variable if the superclass handle refers to an
object of the given subclass.
The suggested text is making a distinction between a "handle"
and a "variable" but that distinction is not really correctly applied
here. The "handle" is in fact the value of the reference, the
"variable" is the container for the handle. In addition, the statement
requires that the handle be of the subclass type; obviously that
is too strong -- the handle is required to be assignment compatible
with the subclass type (i.e. any derivation of the subclass would
be valid).
I'd prefer something like the following:
However, the $cast function may be used to assign a superclass
variable to a subclass variable if the superclass variable refers
to an
object handle where the actual object type is assignment compatible
with the subclass variable.
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 Mon Jun 6 08:05:57 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 06 2011 - 08:05:59 PDT