RE: [sv-ac] RE: minor comments on 1549

Could the keyword 'parameter' be used instead of 'const'?

Shalom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org]
On
> Behalf Of Korchemny, Dmitry
> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 1:57 PM
> To: Arturo Salz; john.havlicek@freescale.com
> Cc: piper@cadence.com; sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] RE: minor comments on 1549
> 
> Hi Arturo,
> 
> Using parameters is indeed consistent with other SV areas, but the
> property usage becomes more difficult: the end-users will have to
> distinguish between parameters and ports. E.g. instead of writing
> 
> assert property (triggers(.cond(a), .impl(b), .delay(c));
> 
> The user will have to write:
> 
> assert property (triggers#(.delay(c))(.cond(a), .impl(b));
> 
> For the end-user the first form is more intuitive. Therefore when in
> this approach the library properties will always have wrappers. E.g.,
> 
> property triggers(cond, impl, delay);
> 	lib_triggers#(delay)(cond, impl);
> endproperty
> 
> property lib_triggers#(shortint delay = 1) (cond, impl);
> 	a |-> ##delay b;
> endproperty
> 
> Using const would save one wrapper.
> 
> Regards,
> Dmitry