RE: [sv-ac] Reviewing 3191 (triggered method on sequence formals)

Can you explain in more detail why this is the case? Right now I don't see .triggered covered at all in A.2.10.

From: Kulshrestha, Manisha [mailto:Manisha_Kulshrestha@mentor.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 8:49 PM
To: Seligman, Erik; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Reviewing 3191 (triggered method on sequence formals)

Hi Erik,

One reason we want to only allow .triggered call on formals is because that will not require any changes in the syntax. Having f.triggered is like a hierarchical ref which will be parsed by existing BNF. But if we allow .triggered on any sequence expression, then we need to enhance the BNF to allow hierarchical ref kind of thing on a sequence expression.

Thanks.
Manisha

________________________________
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Seligman, Erik
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:37 PM
To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: [sv-ac] Reviewing 3191 (triggered method on sequence formals)
Hi guys-I carried out my action item to take a look at this proposal. Can someone remind me why we wanted to do an extension specific to sequence formal arguments, instead of defining the triggered method for general sequences? In particular, this paragraph seems very awkward to me:

There is one case in which the rewriting algorithm produces a legal flattened sequence which would not be legal in the source text: when an actual argument is a sequence expression and it is substituted for a reference to the corresponding formal argument standing as the operand of a sequence method call. In this case, the substitution produces a sequence expression, enclosed in parentheses, as the operand of the sequence method call. This is illegal in the source text, but is allowed as a result of the rewriting algorithm. All other cases in which the flattened sequence is illegal shall result with an error.

Do we really want to make this such a special case? Would it really be easier to define/implement this extension rather than just making the method defined for any sequence expression?

Defining triggered method for sequence arguments
Can we allow a sequence method on formal arguments

i.e.
property p (sequence s);
       s.triggered;
endproperty

Mantis 3191
Jacob: It's not legal to call triggered method on sequence s. (because of
       substitution semantics?). Could we do a smaller extention to allow
       only this case?
       A more comprehensive proposal would be to allow calling the triggered
       method on any sequence expression.

3191: Anupam and Erik will review this proposal

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.