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

Hello,

would it be too crazy to define some "virtual" types like "integral",
"class", "property", "sequence", etc. and a partial order over all types
defined by a relation is_derived or member_of.

Then we could use type(x) == type(y) as strict equivalence, type(x) <
type(y) as x is derived from y or member_of y. For instance, integral <
sequence < property.

Perhaps we would have to use something else than "type" to apply that to
the actual args rather than formal args.

ed


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On 
> Behalf Of Rich, Dave
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 5:33 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.
> 
> 
> 

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