Re: [sv-ac] 928 Proposal Updated

Hi Ed:

I must be missing something.

If we add parentheses to event expressions and do nothing
else then the problem is not solved, is it?

J.H.

> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 06:23:08 -0700
> Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] 928 Proposal Updated
> Thread-Index: AcaWvGEXLAhR4JMITtWYx/GKOc3iVAAC5rpw
> From: "Eduard Cerny" <Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com>
> Cc: <piper@cadence.com>, <spsaha@cal.interrasystems.com>,
>         <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com>, <sv-ac@verilog.org>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jun 2006 13:23:10.0361 (UTC) FILETIME=[2C118890:01C696C8]
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> yes, I agree. But I think that the definition of event_expression would
> allow both forms, w/ and w/o parentheses. The note that you mention
> would just enforce it for the particular cae in question.
> 
> Best regards,
> ed
> =20
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Havlicek [mailto:john.havlicek@freescale.com]=20
> > Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 7:59 AM
> > To: Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.COM
> > Cc: john.havlicek@freescale.com; Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.COM;=20
> > piper@cadence.com; spsaha@cal.interrasystems.com;=20
> > Brad.Pierce@synopsys.COM; sv-ac@verilog.org
> > Subject: Re: [sv-ac] 928 Proposal Updated
> >=20
> > Hi Ed:
> >=20
> > I think adding parentheses to the event expression syntax
> > is a good thing.  I like giving the user the flexibility
> > to parenthesize for readability.
> >=20
> > However, I still don't like the solution that requires=20
> > parentheses in all cases of positional binding of event=20
> > expression actual arguments.
> >=20
> > What about a solution that adds the parentheses to the event
> > expression syntax _and_ adds the restriction that if an
> > event expression that contains comma-separated sub event expressions
> > is passed as an actual argument using positional binding, then
> > those comma separators must appear within enclosing parenthese.
> >=20
> > I'm sure the wording of the restriction could be improved,
> > but I think it is clear enough for discussion.
> >=20
> > The advantage of this is that it doesn't force the parentheses
> > all the time, but it still allows the comma-separated list
> > to be passed if parentheses are used. =20
> >=20
> > What do you think? =20
> >=20
> > J.H.
> >=20
> >=20