From: Shalom Bresticker (Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com)
Date: Sun Sep 02 2001 - 01:57:38 PDT
Now it's MY turn to quote from the archives. See:
http://boyd.com/1364_btf/btf_1999/0194.html
http://boyd.com/1364_btf/btf_1999/0195.html
http://boyd.com/1364_btf/btf_1999/0196.html
http://boyd.com/1364_btf/btf_1999/0197.html
http://boyd.com/1364_btf/btf_1999/0235.html
So it WAS discussed and not negated.
Shalom
<p>Steven Sharp wrote:
> I certainly don't remember anyone suggesting that it be allowed in that
> context. If it were allowed, it could be defined as being sensitive to
> anything referenced in the statement, or only to things referenced in
> the right hand side. These would differ if the left hand side contained
> any bit or part selects referencing variables or nets.
>
> The construct doesn't appear to serve any useful purpose. Then again,
> @* doesn't have any obvious use except when attached to the entire body
> of an always block (which is why the semantic should have been implemented
> with a special kind of always block, not a special kind of event control).
>
> Steven Sharp
> sharp@cadence.com
-- ************************************************************************** Shalom Bresticker Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com Motorola Semiconductor Israel, Ltd. Tel #: +972 9 9522268 P.O.B. 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL Fax #: +972 9 9522890 **************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Mon Jul 08 2002 - 12:54:45 PDT
and
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.