From: Steven Sharp (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Apr 15 2005 - 13:58:32 PDT
>The proposal has to state exactly where the change will be made.
>The term "combinational construct" is not defined and should not be used.
>Besides, someone might interpret it to mean certain always @() constructs,
>or at least always @*, which is not the intent.
>(I would support adding them, though.)
So would I, by the proposed method of specifying the execution order
at time zero.
>"combinational primitive" is not defined, either.
>There are the built-in primitives
>(gates, switches) defined in Clause 7 and there are also combinational UDPs.
The intent was to include all of those (all primitives except sequential
>Port connections also need to be included.
Technically they are already included, since they are defined to be
continuous assignments, which are already included. (And if they are
port-collapsed, there is nothing to be executed and no need to do so.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Fri Apr 15 2005 - 13:35:51 PDT
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.