Re: [sv-bc] Type of integer literals

Gord,

Being a 1364-2001 data type, I think the simple integer literals are clearly of
type integer and not int.

Shalom

Gordon Vreugdenhil wrote:

> I noticed something the other day that should be considered for
> clarification. In 1364-2001 (and -2500 draft), a simple integer
> literal (i.e. 42) is an "integer". This makes sense since there
> are no 2 state values. 1800 doesn't address whether simple
> integer literals should be of type "int" or "integer" but
> perhaps should be explicit about intent. In most 1364 contexts it
> is difficult to have any user-noticeable impact, but given the
> existence of "$typeof" and type parameters, it is now quite easy
> to construct realistic scenarios where the difference is in fact
> important. There are also edge cases even in 1364 expressions, such
> as $display(1/0), in which the difference can be observed.
>
> Gordon
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon Vreugdenhil, Staff Engineer 503-685-0808
> Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.com

--
Shalom Bresticker                        Shalom.Bresticker @freescale.com
Design & Verification Methodology                    Tel: +972 9  9522268
Freescale Semiconductor Israel, Ltd.                 Fax: +972 9  9522890
POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL                     Cell: +972 50 5441478
[ ]Freescale Internal Use Only      [ ]Freescale Confidential Proprietary