I agree that if there's a size method, then it should be exactly like $size, with its two arguments. The second argument of any array_dimension_function like $size() has a default value of 1, which is why it's often omitted in calls. The size() method for dynamic arrays currently only has the one implicit array argument and no second argument for the dimension number. Looks like an erratum. My personal bias is for methods, which are reminiscent of VHDL attributes, for example, A'LENGTH(2). -- Brad -----Original Message----- From: Greg Jaxon Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 11:32 AM To: Rich, Dave Cc: Brad Pierce; sv-bc@eda.org; sv-ec@eda.org Subject: Re: [sv-bc] size() array methods for packed, unpacked and associative arrays Rich, Dave wrote: > Then you get into issues like a packed struct also creates a packed > array of the same name and then 'size' becomes a keyword. Replying to Brad Pierce, who wrote: >> We could define A.size() in terms of $size(A) and be done with it for >> all array kinds. >> Since arrays can be multi-dimensional, you'd want a different prototype. "Size of the first dimension" is not the result I'd intuitively expect. Having a method notation for measuring objects of varying size seems pretty natural to me, but it appears to be completely redundant with the $size() system function. I'd rather eliminate the method calls! Greg Jaxon Disclaimer: Personal biases again...Received on Wed May 31 12:27:37 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 31 2006 - 12:27:46 PDT