Re: [sv-bc] illegal priority if

Bresticker, Shalom wrote:

> The non-onehot uses of unique, using your terminology, are "illegal" (a
> poor choice of terms) not because they require non-deterministic
> behavior, which they don't, but rather simply because they are not
> one-hot. Period.

If it was the simulator's job to model the behavior of the synthesized
hardware, then the parallel activation of several of the conditional arms
would set up conditions for a non-deterministic outcome of many common
cases.  You're right that non-onehot unique cases do not require
non-determinacy in the simulator, per se.

> That is, as Cliff as pointed out, unique is an assertion of one-hot. A
> non-onehot use is simply a violation of that assertion.
> 
> 
>>We say that non-onehot uses of unique are "illegal" because,
>>formally
>>speaking, they require non-deterministic simulator behavior,
>>which
>>cannot be delivered.  The simulator "warns" when it must
>>discard an
>>alternative simulation control flow.
> 
> 
> 
> Shalom