Re: [sv-bc] enum value uniqueness

From: Steven Sharp <sharp_at_.....>
Date: Tue Oct 23 2007 - 09:03:36 PDT

I agree with Dave that this is not legal.  The values of the two
definitions of IDLE are the same, but the type is not.  What if
someone asked for type(IDLE)?

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Received on Tue Oct 23 09:03:52 2007

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Mark Hartoog: "RE: [sv-bc] enum value uniqueness"
Previous message: Warmke, Doug: "RE: [sv-bc] RE: Suppression of unique/priority glitches (new proposal at http://www.verilog.org/mantis/view.php?id=2005)"
Maybe in reply to: Bresticker, Shalom: "[sv-bc] enum value uniqueness"
Next in thread: Bresticker, Shalom: "RE: [sv-bc] enum value uniqueness"
Reply: Bresticker, Shalom: "RE: [sv-bc] enum value uniqueness"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ By Date ] [ By Thread ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ] [ By messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 23 2007 - 09:04:22 PDT