RE: [sv-ac] AC 196 - optional type spec?

Ed,

As stated before to allow backward compatibility the proposal needs to have
a BNF of its own, which steals the majority of the existing tf_port_list BNF.
There cannot be an implicit type or an ommited type. Anything
without a type stays as today. Therefore one would need to write the below.

(wire a, type_spec1 x, type_spec1 y, type_spec2 v, type_spec2 w)

Hillel

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org]On Behalf Of Eduard Cerny
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 1:05 AM
To: Sv_Ac
Cc: Eduard Cerny
Subject: [sv-ac] AC 196 - optional type spec?

Hello,

It seems to me that there may be a problem in allowing optional type
specification on formal arguments to sequences and properties for the
following reason:

If I understand the LRM correctly, a tf_port_list can be specified as
follows:

(a, type_spec1 x, y, type_spec2 v, w)

in this case a is of type wire (?), x AND y are of type type_spec1, v AND w
are of type type_spec2.

How does one distinguish omitted type from a type propagating from a
preceding declaration or be implicit?

Can we add a restriction such that untyped formals are specified first,
followed by typed formals? In that case a in the above example would be
untyped.

ed
Received on Tue Nov 16 09:47:49 2004