RE: [sv-ac] Sv-AC 1737

Hu Jonathan,

the construct s ##0 P is illegal if P is a property. There is or will be
a proposal to add the dual of |->, called followed_by, symbol #-#. This
is what is the ugly form we have there now.

ed

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On 
> Behalf Of Jonathan Bromley
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:59 AM
> To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Sv-AC 1737
> 
> SV-AC,
>  
> Please excuse the intrusion.  I've been following the 1737 discussion 
> and wanted to ask a question that will probably expose my 
> ignorance and/or stupidity.
>  
> When creating "cover property" with an inferred antecedent, 
>  
>   ... if (condition) begin
>         cover property (P);
>   ...
> is rewritten as
>  
> cover property (not (condition |-> not (P)));
>  
> I understand and agree with this, but I can't see any difference
> between
>   cover property (not (condition |-> not (P)));
> and the easier-to-understand
>   cover property (condition ##0 P);
>  
> Can someone kindly explain why the double-negation 
> form is preferable?
> 
> Thanks in advance
> -- 
> Jonathan Bromley
>  
> 
> -- This message has been scanned for viruses anddangerous 
> content by MailScanner, and isbelieved to be clean.
> 
> 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.