RE: [sv-ec] Proposal for Mantis 3001

Jonathan,

I think that there are some fairly subtle issues that open up once you have object construction as a general expression. In particular, the issues of "referencing" might be a potential problem with, for example,
ref arguments (is that even legal?). I'd have to think about issues related to "mid-expression" construction and reference in, say, ternaries and various other situations and what the implications on overall state might be (and whether they are always well defined in terms of order).

I'd not be comfortable passing this as is right now without some deeper consideration which I won't have time to do until October due to travel commitments.

If the context were restricted to the current forms (i.e. construction only as the immediate RHS of an assignment) I'd be more comfortable that implementations will end up doing the same thing.

Gord.

________________________________________
From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [owner-sv-ec@eda.org] on behalf of Jonathan Bromley [jonathanbromley@ymail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 2:34 AM
To: sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: [sv-ec] Proposal for Mantis 3001

hi EC,

I've uploaded what I hope is a complete proposal for Mantis 3001.
It's fairly simple and I think there was some consensus in an
earlier discussion that "base=Derived::new();" makes sense.
It would be nice to put this to bed if there's agreement.

Jonathan Bromley

--
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.