>From: "Rich, Dave" <Dave_Rich@mentorg.com> > >[DR>] That is why I tried to propose that the default branch of a >priority/unique case statement not be part of the check, and only get >executed if there is a violation. Having a default branch in a p/u case >statement is currently useless. It is useless in a priority case, since the check will never fail when there is a default. Conversely, if the action on a failure in a priority case is to execute the default, as you propose, it is pretty pointless to declare it as` a priority case. An ordinary case already executes the default when no other case item matches, so declaring it priority wouldn't change anything. I am not convinced that a default is useless in a unique case. You might have a default to handle a set of values that are too complex to specify explicitly, but still want a failure if multiple explicit case items matched. Perhaps you are assuming that a default is treated as an "always match", which would automatically result in a failure if an explicit case item matched also. That is not how I interpret it. I already assume that the default is not part of the multiple match portion of the unique check. The default is only considered if none of the other items match, so it can never match at the same time as another item. >I would rather we take some functionality out than let poorly understood >functionality go in. Spend the proper amount of time to get it right. Are you suggesting that priority and unique be removed from the P1800 LRM? Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.comReceived on Fri Apr 8 11:52:59 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 08 2005 - 11:53:03 PDT