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

Ed,

I think that's a brilliant idea to use the relational operators for
testing the partial ordering of types and these 'virtual' types.

I still don't see a difference between the types of formal and actual
arguments of properties and sequences. Since the formal arguments of
properties and sequences are type-less in the current LRM, these formal
arguments are replaced by actual arguments in the elaboration process
and the formals disappear. The enhancement that allows you to declare
formal argument types doesn't change that process; it just restricts the
actual types.

If you do think there is a difference in the formal and actual argument
types after elaboration, the $issomething(arg) proposal would have the
same problem.

Dave



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eduard Cerny [mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com]
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 7:38 AM
> To: Rich, Dave; Brad Pierce; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> Subject: 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.