RE: [sv-bc] DataTypes: wording for optional "var"

From: Kathy McKinley (mckinley@cadence.com)
Date: Thu Nov 18 2004 - 16:26:37 PST

  • Next message: Steven Sharp: "RE: [sv-bc] DataTypes: wording for optional "var""

    I like this idea, but I agree that it is beyond the scope of this
    proposal. I think that it would be worth bringing up when the var
    proposal is discussed, just to get people thinking about it.

    >Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:16:23 -0500 (EST)
    >From: Steven Sharp <sharp@cadence.com>
    >Subject: RE: [sv-bc] DataTypes: wording for optional "var"
    >To: btf-dtype@boyd.com, sv-bc@eda.org, Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com
    >
    >>There would be an ambiguity on
    >>
    >> typedef my_logic ;
    >>
    >>Is that a forward typedef or
    >>
    >> typedef logic my_logic ;
    >
    >Good point. That is a bit of a flaw.
    >
    >
    >>Otherwise it makes sense to me. The only BNF change needed would be
    >>in A.2.1.3 and Syntax 3-2, in type_declaration, REPLACE
    >>
    >> data_type
    >>
    >>WITH
    >>
    >> data_type_or_implicit
    >>
    >>Plus some footnote to resolve the ambiguity of
    >>
    >> typedef my_logic ;
    >
    >I will withdraw the suggestion on the grounds that it is getting beyond
    >the scope of this proposal, and we don't have much time. However, it
    >might be something to keep in mind. It would be consistent. It would
    >be nice that you could take whatever syntax appears in the data_type spot
    >in a declaration and use that in a typedef for a type to replace it.
    >
    >Steven Sharp
    >sharp@cadence.com
    >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 16:14:14 PST and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.