RE: [sv-ac] call for email vote on motion regarding Mantis 1728

I agree with all of Tej's comments.

Shalom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org]
> On Behalf Of Singh, Tej
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 1:27 AM
> To: Korchemny, Dmitry; sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] call for email vote on motion regarding Mantis
> 1728
> 
> Hi Dmitry,
> 
> Thanks for modifying the proposal. Some further comments,
> 
> 1. The proposal strongly bonds 'let' with 'property' and 'sequence'.
> If
> "let" is restricted to only those contexts in which sequence and
> property references are permitted, that is fine. But that is'nt the
> restriction and it is not easy for someone not familiar with property
> and sequence semantics to extrapolate the rules easily.
> 
> 2. Quoting your reponse to one of the objections
> 
> > 9) There doesn't appear to be any restriction regarding referencing
> > a "let" in a deeper level of generate. This can be used to
> > create contradictory designs:
> > module top;
> > paramater p = genb.x;
> > if (p) begin:genb
> > let x = 0;
> > end else begin
> > let x = 1;
> > end
> > endmodule
> >
> > [Korchemny, Dmitry] I agree, this construct should not be valid. I
> > think that hierarchical referencing of let statements in a deeper
> > level of generate should be forbidden.
> 
> It is valid to refer to sequence and properties in a deeper level of
> generate.
> So why should it be a restriction for generate. A valid restriction
> would be
> 
> A reference to a let in a context that requires a constant expression
> shall only
> be legal if an equivalent reference to a constant function would be
> legal.
> 
> 3) Example 9 says "Import from a package should follow the same rules
> as
> when importing functions from
> packages."
> This is slightly confusing in the sense that it does not say it is
> talking about function import rules and not about calling function
> from
> the package i.e. let is still expanded like a macro and not called
> like
> a function.
> 
> Regards
> Tej

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