[sv-bc] RE: areas of implementation divergence

Brad, 

The WHOLE POINT OF HAVING A STANDARD IS RECORDING COMMON PRACTICE. 

You and I, and the other members of this committee have a long history that other end users and implementers of the standard do not have. It's easy for us to understand the intent, and search the LRM for justifications, but those other people do not have that benefit. And all the people in that environment (training, support, maintenance, AEs), are faced with these problems every day (and many times each day).


Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Brad Pierce
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:49 AM
To: sv-bc@eda.org; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: [sv-ec] RE: areas of implementation divergence

Hi Dave,

>The divergence is one tool produces an error, another tools allows it.

I think we could find better ways to invest your valuable expertise than addressing divergences of that nature. 

For example, consider the issue of whether '{default:0} can be assigned to a struct that contains an enum field. (Personally, I prefer {>>{'0}}.) 

The LRM seems pretty clear that 0 cannot be assigned to an enum field without a static cast, but it's equally clear that this rule gets in the way of the work of '{default:0} users . So tools that initially enforced the LRM on that point eventually drop the enforcement.

But there is no divergence on how they implement the assignment, once they allow it. 

By the time the LRM gets in alignment with where users have already taken the tools, it's just recording common practice, and has almost no impact on existing tools or on getting the job done.

-- Brad


--
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.