Re: [sv-bc] comments on array literal section

There's no need for these sections.  The terms 'structure literal'
and 'array literal' are not used anywhere else in the LRM.  Why
not just scrap these sections?

-- Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org]On Behalf Of Paul
Graham
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 3:03 PM
To: sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: [sv-bc] comments on array literal section


I'm looking at the p1800 draft 4, section 3.7 on Array
Literals.  A few comments:

1) The section begins:

    Array literals are syntactically similar to C
    initializers, but with the replicate operator ( {{}} )
    allowed.

But then it gives literals with the '{} syntax, which is not
similar to the C initializer syntax.  This raises questions
in the reader's mind, which are not resolved until section
8.13.  That's a long time to keep someone in suspense.  Why
not say that array literals (and struct literals) resemble C
initializers except that they include an apostrophe prefix.

Also, doesn't a replicate operator within an array or struct
literal also require the apostrophe prefix?  So this should
also be mentioned in the first sentence of this section.

2) If '{1, 2, 3} is considered a literal, then why isn't an
ordinary bitvector concatenation considered a literal?  In
fact, given the complexity of array and struct assignment
patterns, I don't think that section 3.7 is really the place
for them.  Is there some special reason for including array
and struct literals in chapter 3?  I also notice that the
syntax for array and struct literals isn't even given in
the syntax box at the top of chapter 3.

Paul