Re: [sv-ac] mantis 1550

Hi Ed:

That does seem too drastic -- the assignment you show seems 
like a clearly useful example of the sampled value function.
I know our users would like to be able to write this kind of
assignment.

My original point of view was that we should define when 
changes in the sampled value function produce update events
so that everything would (hopefully and, perhaps, wishfully)
be defined.

It seems to me that we definitely do not want sampled value 
functions to behave like $time with regard to update events.

Should we go back to this and try to identify the specific
uses of sampled value functions that caused concern for
Stu and others?

Best regards,

John H.

> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 08:09:09 -0800
> Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] mantis 1550
> Thread-Index: Acb/RzmiEzfY5rx5TP63YAxEjfldCQAGMJDAAACGRyA=
> From: "Eduard Cerny" <Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Nov 2006 16:09:11.0345 (UTC) FILETIME=[6637D210:01C6FF62]
> 
> Therefore, should I add a statement that no sampled value function can
> be used as the source of a value-change event? Does this mean that the
> following statement would only execute once at time 0?
> assign v =3D $past(x);
> Isn't that a bit drastic?
> 
> ed
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On=20
> > Behalf Of Rich, Dave
> > Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 10:54 AM
> > To: john.havlicek@freescale.com; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> > Subject: RE: [sv-ac] mantis 1550
> >=20
> > I agree with your conclusion.
> >=20
> >=20
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org]
> > On
> > > Behalf Of John Havlicek
> > > Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 4:53 AM
> > > To: sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
> > > Subject: Re: [sv-ac] mantis 1550
> > >=20
> > > Hi Dave:
> > >=20
> > > My intuition is that the generation of events from changes in the
> > > return values of sampled value functions will be useful as a more
> > > abstract view of the various changes in their arguments.
> > >=20
> > > Nevertheless, the reluctance to define such generated events is
> > > understandable in the absence of a clear use model.
> > >=20
> > > In this case, though, I prefer that we make illegal the usage of
> > > sampled value functions in contexts that require the definition of
> > > events generated from their changes.
> > >=20
> > > In that way, we can preserve the possibility of defining=20
> > those events
> > > at a later time.
> > >=20
> > > Best regards,
> > >=20
> > > John H.
> > >=20