Re: [sv-ac] New proposal for mantis #1646 - generate constructs in sequences and properties

What's the justification for requiring generate/endgenerate keywords
here, when they are optional in the rest of the language?

Also, it would be helpful if there were a realistic example of using
generate loops, in addition to the examples about conditional generate.

-- Brad 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Eduard Cerny
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 1:44 PM
To: Seligman, Erik
Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] New proposal for mantis #1646 - generate constructs
in sequences and properties

 Hello Erik,

Please find attached a corrected proposal. I did a few more
"adjustments" too. I have also deposited the proposal on Mantis.

Thank you,
ed

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Seligman, Erik [mailto:erik.seligman@intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 5:17 PM
> To: Eduard Cerny
> Cc: Korchemny, Dmitry
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] New proposal for mantis #1646 - generate 
> constructs in sequences and properties
> 
> Hi again--
> 
> I have a few minor comments/questions on this proposal as well.  Hope 
> I'm not harassing you too much. :-)
> 
> - In sec 17.11.3, the last sentence you add reads
> 	"It is illegal to refer to locally declared properties of a
property 
> from the outside of the enclosing property."
> This seems kind of awkward, English-wise.   I think I could 
> interpret it
> to mean that a 2-deep locally declared property can be referenced from

> an extra level up -- do we mean the "enclosing property" of the 
> sub-property, or of the original property?  Maybe rephrase with 
> something like:
> 	"If a property is declared within the scope of another property,
it 
> is illegal to refer to it outside the scope in which it is declared."
> 
> - In the insert for 17.11.4, I think the example weak_until property 
> has a clarity issue: 'p' is used both as an input, and as a 
> sub-property name.  The recursion in the second sub-property may also 
> have an issue-- did we really want to recurse on the top-level 
> property rather than on the local sub-property?
> 
> - In the example at the end of this pdf, within property p1(s,p), 
> property prop_always is no longer recursive.  Is that really the 
> intent?
> Also, I think there's a typo below, where we refer to 
> "property_always"
> instead of "prop_always".
> 
> 
>     
> 

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


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