RE: [sv-ac] call to vote on 1549

This quote was from the previous section of the standard, not from the
proposal.  We should open another Mantis item to fix this. I'm afraid if
I try to add it to this, it will continue to ripple to other things.

lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Bresticker, Shalom
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:16 AM
To: Bustan, Doron; Yaniv.Fais@freescale.com
Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] call to vote on 1549

The LRM states in other places restrictions on the use of $. 
The question is whether the example fulfills those conditions.

The following quoted wording is a little unclear: 

> An actual argument can replace any of the following:
> - Identifier
> - Expression
> - Event control expression
> - Upper delay range or repetition range if the actual argument is $

"can replace" seems a little problematic here.
An actual argument cannot really replace an expression. E.g., it cannot
replace a+b. It can replace a formal argument which is used as an
expression, which is a little different.

And does this list cover all the possibilities, or is it just intended
to be examples?

And does the last item mean:
1. If the actual argument is $, it can be used only in this way? If it
is not $, can it be used in this way?
2. It can be used in this way only if it is $? If it is $, can it be
used in another way?

Thanks,
Shalom

-- 
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.