Re: [sv-ac] revised 1326

Hi Bassam:

Using "moreover" suggests that the statement that goto and
nonconsecutive repetition cannot be applied to a boolean to
which a sequence match item is attached is an additional 
restriction.

I have always thought that once a match item is attach to 
a boolean, the result is a sequence that is no longer a boolean--
you cannot, e.g., apply ordinary boolean operators to it.  
Therefore I view the statement about the goto and nonconsecutive
repetition not being allowed on a boolean with a match item
attached to be a special case of the preceding rule that says that
the goto and nonconsecutive repetition can only be applied to
booleans.

I guess it depends on whether one reads a phrase like "boolean 
with a sequence match item attached" and infers that the thing
is still a boolean.

J.H.


> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:40:11 -0700
> Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] revised 1326
> Thread-Index: AcaWOjO4Zhs+oBEITZWNPuDHREDNiQAEhayA
> From: "Bassam Tabbara" <Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.com>
> Cc: <sv-ac@eda-stds.org>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jun 2006 22:40:13.0731 (UTC) FILETIME=[D3894F30:01C6964C]
> 
> John, looks good. The "In particular, goto..." bugs me for some reason,
> may be change to "Moreover, goto ..." ?
> 
> Thx.
> -Bassam.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org] On
> Behalf Of John Havlicek
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:25 PM
> To: Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.COM
> Cc: john.havlicek@freescale.com; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-ac] revised 1326
> 
> Hi Ed:
> 
> Yes, your example is legal and it looks nicer, so I changed the Mantis
> proposal to use it.
> 
> Sorry for the swirl, but it is a minor change.
> 
> J.H.
> 
> > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
> > Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> > Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 08:49:20 -0700
> > Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] revised 1326
> > Thread-Index: AcaWBukU2pmf3EmVQg+7Gd2Eq708UQADFG9w
> > From: "Eduard Cerny" <Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com>
> > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jun 2006 15:49:21.0211 (UTC)=20
> > FILETIME=3D[6D7D48B0:01C69613]
> >=20
> > Hi John,
> >=20
> > an alternate soltion for the legal example could also be
> >=20
> > (b[->1], v =3D3D e)[*2]=3D20
> >=20
> > I think that this would be legal too.
> >=20
> > ed
> > =3D20
> >=20
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org=3D20
> > > [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org] On Behalf Of John Havlicek
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:18 AM
> > > To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> > > Subject: [sv-ac] revised 1326
> > >=3D20
> > > All:
> > >=3D20
> > > I have updated the proposed resolution for 1326 on Mantis.
> > >=3D20
> > > J.H.
> > >=3D20