RE: [sv-bc] Re: issue 324 for asymmetric casex

I don't have a strong opinion on this either way, and would move to
accept whatever the majority of the committee feels most comfortable
with.

One thing I will say is that once synthesis tools support
'case...inside' (nudge, nudge), no one will go back to using the older
case/casex/casez statements.

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Sharp [mailto:sharp@cadence.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 5:33 PM
> To: sharp@cadence.com; sv-bc@eda.org; Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com; Rich,
Dave
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Re: issue 324 for asymmetric casex
> 
> Hmm, I notice that you put {} delimiters around each set of case
items.
> That certainly makes the operation easier to describe, since each set
has
> the same syntax as the right operand of an inside operator.  However,
it
> doesn't look like the {} delimiters are necessary.
> 
> I am not all that worried about the extra verboseness for users
writing
> new case...inside statements (though Cliff might be :-).  I am more
> concerned about users wanting to go back to their casex and casez
> statements in existing code and change them to case...inside, to get
> asymmetric wildcards.  It is pretty easy to go back and change
> "casez (foo)" to "case (foo) inside", but could be very painful to
> go through a long list of case item expressions and put {} around
them.
> 
> I also expect that we will eventually want to go back and allow ranges
> on the older case, casex and casez constructs.  There you can't put {}
> around the case item expressions, because a list of case item
expressions
> would then be treated as a single case item expression that is a
> concatenation.
> 
> Steven Sharp
> sharp@cadence.com