RE: [sv-bc] New Mantis item 272

Steven,

Thanks for catching this one.
I had assumed we were using the term "ordinal" number in
the way you describe "numeric values" in the 2nd paragraph
of your mail.

Since we are not, I will amend the proposal to use
something akin to "numeric value associated with the
enum value".

There is some other minor usage of the term "ordinal"
nearby in the LRM which I will also change in the updated
proposal.

Regards,
Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On
> Behalf Of Steven Sharp
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 4:41 PM
> To: sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-bc] New Mantis item 272
>
> The use of the term "ordinal number" in this proposal and in
> section 23.15.2
> and 23.16.2 is presumably an error. First of all, this term
> has not been
> defined in the LRM. And second, its actual meaning is
> probably not what is
> desired here.
>
> What is presumably desired is the numeric value associated
> with the enum
> value, whether assigned explicitly by the user or implicitly
> by the compiler.
> The ordinal number would be the position of the value in the
> list of enum
> literals. This would be the same thing if all values were assigned
> implicitly by the compiler. But with user-assigned values,
> the assigned
> value may not match the ordinal number.
>
> Steven Sharp
> sharp@cadence.com
>
>
Received on Thu Oct 28 08:56:57 2004