RE: [sv-bc] DataTypes: status of "var" proposal

Hello

There was some discussion about the ordering of statements in the var statement,
i.e. const / var / automatic / rand ... etc.

An example was

   const var logic myVar;

On retrospect for this case, what is 'const var' declaration. A constant function
and a constant argument is necessary, but a constant variable sounds contradictory.

Shouldn't const be a basic entity like parameter, as opposed to a variable declaration
attribute ?

   var logic myVar;
   parameter logic myParam;
   const logic myConst;

Regards

   Jonathan Bradford

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org]On Behalf Of Kathy
McKinley
Sent: Friday, 19 November, 2004 5:44 AM
To: btf-dtype@boyd.com; sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: [sv-bc] DataTypes: status of "var" proposal

Hello everyone,

Based on the subgroup meeting today, I am supposed to make a procedural
recommendation for the "var" aspect of our proposal. So, here goes.

The "var" proposal is coming along beautifully, but it is not ready
to be folded into the rest of the "data types on nets" proposal.
In particular, changes to section 18 are required, and we do not
have sufficient feedback on the proposed changes.

This extension clearly has a lot of support, and there is active
positive feedback (with no negative feedback) on the latest grammar
proposals and the section 5 wording proposal (as long as the examples
are enhanced). The more limited feedback on proposed changes to section
18 is positive as well. I propose the following course of action:

   We will include a separate section at the end of the "data types
   on nets" proposal. It will include the following:

       - Brad's latest grammar proposal

       - Kathy's latest addition to section 5, plus Steven's
         recommended example enhancements

       - Steven's latest modifications to section 18

   We will *not* propose changes to the typedef syntax/semantics
   (e.g. "typedef foo [7:0];").

This will allow the SV-BC to vote on data types on nets without
the additional "var" enhancement. However, if the SV-BC chooses,
it can vote on this extra section too. Or, it can provide feedback
for another revision.

Please let me know what you think. In the absence of negative feedback,
I will fold the "var" proposals as described above into an "optional"
section of the document for distribution on Friday.

Kathy
Received on Fri Nov 19 01:47:19 2004