RE: [sv-bc] Is #4.2step legal?

> I only see a few ways to get around that, which I
> have mentioned:
> 
> 1. Don't use a delay control.  Use a new construct, such as #step,
that
>    is not a normal delay control and does not follow the existing
rules
>    about precision.
> 
> 2. Don't have 1step produce a normal number.  Have it produce
something
>    that is distinct from a number, such as special time type, so that
a
>    delay control can use new rules for it.
> 
> 3. Have 1step produce a number, but with a value for which the
behavior
>    of a delay control is not already defined (for example, a negative
>    value).  This is not recommended, since such a value would not
follow
>    intuitive rules for math operations applied to it (e.g. if it were
>    negative, 1ps+1step would be less than 1ps, instead of greater).  I
>    just mention it for completeness.

[DR>] 4. Get rid of it altogether by fixing the construct that required
it in the first place, clocking blocks.