Subject: Re: [sv-ac] precedence of the implication ops
From: John Havlicek (john.havlicek@motorola.com)
Date: Mon Oct 13 2003 - 12:04:30 PDT
Surrendra:
Good point. We definitely need to define the precedence
if we allow nesting. For the purposes of alignment it will
be good if we can follow the PSL precedence, whatever that
is turning out to be.
John
> Hi John,
> I think we need to think about the precedence of the implication operators.
> In 3.1, we didn't need precedence for these operators as there was a fixed
> place for their specification. Just thought after today's meeting...
> Surrendra
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> Surrendra A. Dudani
> Synopsys, Inc.
> 377 Simarano Drive, Suite 300
> Marlboro, MA 01752
>
> Tel: 508-263-8072
> Fax: 508-263-8123
> email: Surrendra.Dudani@synopsys.com
> **********************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Oct 13 2003 - 12:05:09 PDT