IM37 (DISCARD PREVIOUS)

(Sorry about the previous send. It was not correct, please ignore it.)
 
 
With Per's feedback, I propose the following modification for the
proposed
SceMi object access method:
 
 
For C++:
=======
 
<<<To be added *after* section 5.4.3.2, "Initialization">>>
 
<<<begin new text>>>
 
SceMi Object Pointer Access
 
static SceMi *
SceMi::Pointer(
    SceMiEC *ec=NULL );
 
This accessor returns a pointer to the SceMi object constructed in a
previous
call to SceMi::Init. The return argument is a pointer to an object of
class SceMi
on which all other methods can be called.
 
If the SceMi::Init method has not yet been called, SceMi::Pointer will
return NULL.
 
<<<end new text>>>

for C:
=====
 
<<<To be added *after* section 5.5.3.2, "Initialization">>>
 
<<<begin new text>>>
 
SceMi Object Pointer Access
 
SceMi *
SceMiPointer(
    SceMiEC *ec );

<<<end new text>>>

 
Matt
 

=======
 
Original proposed syntax, and Per's comments follow...
 
I support this. This is useful especially in layered and modular
environments.

How about changing the names of these to simply SceMi::Pointer() and
SceMiPointer()? Also, we might want to add a SceMiEC argument for
symmetry and to open the door for those implementations that would want
to do some extra sanity checking besides just returning the pointer.

Per

===============================================

Cadence would like to propose the addition of a convenience
method/function to retrieve a pointer to the SceMi object, if it has
been successfully Init'ed:

   C++:
   static SceMi *
   SceMi::ObjectPointer();

   C:
   SceMi *
   SceMiObjectPointer();

   Returns a pointer to the already-initialized SceMi object, or NULL if
   SceMi::Init() (SceMiInit) has not been successfully called.

(I understand we're at the eleventh hour w/ respect to closing out the
issues list for SCE-MI 1.?... Hopefully this is not a contentious
issue.)

Please weigh in with objections to this, to be sure, but also with any
naming convention that is or is not being followed with this proposed
addition.

Matt
Received on Thu Dec 2 08:44:47 2004