[sv-ac] RE: Mantis 3191

Anupam,
I checked your note, and you're correct. I think this sentence may stay as-is and the addition that I made in the next paragraph actually removed. This is because the same existing item() function makes the rewriting algorithm to produce a legal flattened expression in the case in question.
I'll update the proposal.

Thanks.
--------------------------------
Jacob M. Katz | jacob.katz@intel.com<mailto:jacob.katz@intel.com> | Work: +972-4-865-5726 | iNet: (8)-465-5726

From: Prabhakar, Anupam [mailto:anupam_prabhakar@mentor.com]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 22:52
To: Katz, Jacob
Cc: Seligman, Erik; Korchemny, Dmitry
Subject: Mantis 3191

Hi Jacob,

I started reviewing this mantis. I do not like commenting this line - If the flattened sequence is not legal, then the instance is not legal and there shall be an error. I think we should rather tweak the re-writing rules to make sure that a method call on a formal of sequence type is legal. There are other instances like bit-select on an expression which is illegal in verilog but re-writing algorithms make it legal for the flattened expression.

Depending on how we want to address this you might need to take a different approach in writing this proposal. We can discuss this tomorrow.

Anupam

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.