Re: [sv-bc] Is an unnamed block with declarations a scope?

From: Steven Sharp <sharp_at_.....>
Date: Fri Aug 12 2005 - 12:30:11 PDT
Greg Jaxon wrote:
>P-1364 section 9.8.3 ends by saying:
>     The block names give a means of uniquely identifying
>     all variables at any simulation time.
>
>Clearly SV is not backward compatible with this property.
>But just as clearly, those names exist to make variables
>accessible and we should do what is necessary to keep
>that function intact.

As you say, SV has already changed this.  I don't see why
implementations should jump through complex hoops to try to
give back part of what the user has voluntarily given up.
They choose whether to use this feature and accept the
resulting limitations.  If they want access to the variables,
they can get it.

Also, that text in 1364 was already false in 1364-2001, since
variables in automatic tasks/functions cannot be uniquely
identified by hierarchical names, and are not accessible via
hiararchical names.

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com
Received on Fri Aug 12 12:30:22 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Aug 12 2005 - 12:30:52 PDT