Re: [sv-ac] RE: feedback on 1758, -> and <-> operators

Hi Ed:

In 1800-2005, weren't all the HDL operators in Section 8 of higher 
precedence than the sequence and property opertors from Section 17?

I like the syntax "->", "<->", but isn't there a problem with the
operator precedence that needs to be explained?

E.g., if I have

  logic a,b,c;

  assert property (a -> b and c);

what do I get?  

J.H.

> 
> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C77AC4.D6FCA3E0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> 	charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> Hello Lisa,
> =20
> The change in 8.2 is in the addition of -> and <-> in binary_operator.
> =20
> Regarding the arguments to the operators: the operators -> and <-> are
> overloaded, so that in Clause 8 it talks about expressions only. Hence !
> etc. are correct. In Clause 17 it is a property operator.
> =20
> Yes, property_expr is also sequence_expr.
> =20
> Hope it explains the intent of the proposal.
> =20
> Best regards,
> ed
> =20
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 	From: Lisa Piper [mailto:piper@cadence.com]=20
> 	Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 6:16 PM
> 	To: Eduard Cerny
> 	Cc: sv-ac@eda.org
> 	Subject: feedback on 1758, -> and <-> operators
> =09
> =09
> 
> 	Hi Ed,
> 
> =09=20
> 
> 	I read the 1758 proposal.  I cannot tell where the change is in
> section 8.2.  They look the same.
> 
> =09=20
> 
> 	My understanding from 17.11 is that it must be a property_expr
> on both sides of these operators. If so, then the text to insert between
> 8-1 and Table 8-1 is wrong. It should use not instead of "!" and and/or
> instead of && and //.  But then other places it looks like it can be a
> sequence expression.  Perhaps this is because a sequence expr is a
> property expr?  I'm confused.
> 
> =09=20
> 
> 	Lisa
> 
> =09=20
> 
> =09=20
> 
> 

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