[sv-bc] FW: [sv-ec] Type parameterisation of derived classes

Subject: [sv-bc] FW: [sv-ec] Type parameterisation of derived classes
From: David W. Smith (david.smith@synopsys.com)
Date: Wed Sep 03 2003 - 11:23:54 PDT

• Next message: Jim Lewis: "Re: [sv-bc] Alternative to unique/priority if...else"
• Previous message: David W. Smith: "[sv-bc] RE: [sv-ec] Legal use of an inside_expression"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

-----Original Message-----
From: David W. Smith [mailto:david.smith@synopsys.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM
To: 'Jonathan Bromley'; 'sv-ec@eda.org'; 'sv_bc@eda.org'
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Type parameterisation of derived classes

ERR-7 (www.eda.org/sv-ec/Errata.html) has been open to consider the issue.

Regards
David

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan
Bromley
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 3:51 AM
To: sv-ec@eda.org; sv_bc@eda.org
Subject: [sv-ec] Type parameterisation of derived classes

hi,

I sent this to sv-ec a couple of weeks ago and received no reply. This
could be for a bunch of reasons, of course.

However, I still think it's a significant issue so I'm
going to bull on ahead and be a damn nuisance by posting
it again. I've also copied it to sv-bc in case it's more appropriate there.
Thanks for your forbearance.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ repeated message begins ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have a query; I'd be grateful for clarification.

SV3.1 classes can be parameterized for type:

  class C #(parameter type T = bit);
    protected T v; // or whatever
    ...
  endclass

OK, now let's derive something from C...

  class D #(parameter type P = bit) extends C;
    ...

But I would like to be able to choose the value of C's
type parameter T, when I instantiate an object of class D.
I think I would like to be able to say

  class D #(parameter type P = bit) extends C #(.T(P));

so that the derived class's type parameter is passed
on to the base class. But the syntax doesn't seem to
allow for this, and it is not mentioned in the LRM.

I believe that this facility is important to allow the
creation of various kinds of container class. It is
available in C++ using templates. Is this a deliberate
omission from SV3.1, an oversight in the BNF, or have I
missed something?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ repeated message ends ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- 
Jonathan Bromley
Consultant
DOULOS - Developing Design Know-how
VHDL * Verilog * SystemC * e * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project Services
Doulos Ltd. Church Hatch, 22 Market Place, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 1AW, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1425 471223                        Email:
jonathan.bromley@doulos.com
Fax: +44 (0)1425 471573                           Web: http://www.doulos.com
This e-mail and any  attachments are  confidential and Doulos Ltd. reserves 
all rights of privilege in  respect thereof. It is intended for the use of 
the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it 
from  your  system, any  use, disclosure, or copying  of this  document is 
unauthorised. The contents of this message may contain personal views which 
are not the views of Doulos Ltd., unless specifically stated.

• Next message: Jim Lewis: "Re: [sv-bc] Alternative to unique/priority if...else"
• Previous message: David W. Smith: "[sv-bc] RE: [sv-ec] Legal use of an inside_expression"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Sep 03 2003 - 11:22:22 PDT