I think the intent of (5) was "a directly referenced let" (i.e. a simple identifier) but that was not stated. Given that there are apparently other magic rules at work, I took the broader interpretation. This gets back to the point I made in a previous note -- if there aren't special rules, don't give the rules, it just causes confusion. Gord. Bresticker, Shalom wrote: > Gord, > > I understand some of your concerns, but I have trouble with one of them: > >>>>> 5) ... In the scope of declaration, let must be defined >>>>> before used. >>>>> 7) The let expression can be referenced by hierarchical name... > >>>>> (5) also directly conflicts with (7). If (7) is true, then >>>>> the following is legal: >>>>> module top; >>>>> int x = top.y; >>>>> let y = 0; >>>>> endmodule >>>>> But (5) just claimed that you cannot refer to the let before using >>> it. > > [SB] I don't see why you saw a conflict. Just like with variables, in a > non-hierarchical reference, it must be previously declared. If the > reference is hierarchical, the declaration can be anywhere in the > referenced scope. > > Your issues with hierarchical references are a separate issue. > > Regards, > Shalom -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Vreugdenhil 503-685-0808 Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Jun 14 07:06:17 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 14 2007 - 07:06:59 PDT