[sv-ac] RE: brief review of 2173

Hi John,

I have followed your suggestion and added in the BNF:  "property_expr
::= property_statement", this would indeed make the example you showed
legal.

I have also not specified operator precedence for property statement
"case" since this it is not specified for procedural statement "case",
therefore I think the same rules should apply.

I've uploaded the updated proposal.

Yaniv


-----Original Message-----
From: John Havlicek [mailto:john.havlicek@freescale.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 04:20
To: Fais Yaniv
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: brief review of 2173

Hi Yaniv:

I have read through your proposal for 2173.

I haven't checked things like VPI.  It looks basically good, but there
are some things missing.

I don't think that the syntax you proposed will allow for something like

   property p;
      s 
      |=>
      case (w)
         a:  p1;
         b:  p2;
         default:  p3;
      endcase
   endproperty

or similar with case replaced by if-else.  We can't eliminate these
capabilities.  I think that to make this work we need to allow for

   property_expr ::= property_statement

I think that this basically says that you are free to add semicolons at
the ends of property_expr or property_statement, but you don't have to
put them after things like case and if-else.

There could be objection to this solution of the syntax problem, since
things like

   if (b) p;;; else q;;;;

would be allowed.

We also need to think about operator precedence for case.

J.H.

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