RE: [sv-ac] Mantis #1647: Updated proposal

Dave,

What specific alternate syntax did you have in mind for reflection about
sequence "types"?

-- Brad

p.s.  It would also be nice if there were some better way to inquire
about signedness than

   `define IS_SIGNED(x) (((x) | ~0) < 0)

as in http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-bc/hm/4868.html .


-----Original Message-----
From: Rich, Dave [mailto:Dave_Rich@mentor.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 2:33 PM
To: Brad Pierce; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Mantis #1647: Updated proposal


> 
> Sequences and properties are not data types mentioned in Clause 4.
Has
> this been changed?  If not, is it OK to be talking about "sequence
data
> type"?
[DR>]
Mantis 1549 introduced these new "types".

If you can think of a sequence and property as a type, then there is no
need for these system functions as we already have the type() function
that lets you compare types in an elaboration context. I'd rather see
type equality defined in terms to meet these requirements than introduce
more language.

Dave


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