Arturo's paragraph below is a good summary of what I have been trying to say. I understand that there is a problem, and I am in favor of solving it. However, there has not been a proposal for a solution that works and is feasible. Nor do I believe that there will be such a proposal without changing the existing syntax or severely restricting how it can be used. >I recognize that all the mechanisms that have been proposed to address this >problems are imperfect or unfeasible. Cliff's proposal to schedule evaluation of the >assertion in the observed region (my paraphrase) has serious implementation >problems. Likewise, Steve's proposal to schedule the error reporting in the observed >region to allow filtering of the "steady-state" disposition of the assertions has the >serious drawback of failing to report real errors. Also note that unlike user-written >assertions in which the user code could actually deal with some of these situations >in a case by case basis, the priority/unique warnings are built into the tool, thus >giving users no access to such mechanisms. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.comReceived on Fri Apr 8 11:19:30 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 08 2005 - 11:19:51 PDT