[sv-ac] RE: Mantis 1830

John,

I would recommend 

   sequence_method_call ::=
      sequence_instance . sequence_method_name

   sequence_method_name ::= ended | triggered | matched

My initial reaction was also that nothing needed to be done about Mantis
1830, because 'ended', 'triggered', and 'matched' are not keywords.

However, consider that there is no such thing as a user-defined sequence
method.  So there is an analogy with 'type_option' which is a built-in
member of any coverage group. Even though not a keyword, the
'type_option' syntax is shown in the 'coverage_option' BNF.

Like 'type_option' the sequence method names are really part of the
syntax, and, like 'type_option', they only don't need to be keywords
because they are tucked away in a special namespace.

-- Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: John Havlicek [mailto:john.havlicek@freescale.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 12:57 PM
To: brad.pierce@synopsys.COM
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: Mantis 1830

Hi Brad:

Can you have a look at Mantis 1830 and tell me what you think needs to
be done about it, if anything?

The concern from JEITA is that the sequence methods ended, matched, and
triggered do not appear in A.2.10.

A.2.10 has the production for sequence_method_call, in which the
"ended", "matched", or "triggered" would stand for the non-terminal
method_identifier.

Since these are not keywords, I am not sure that anything else needs to
be done about this item.

J.H.



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