Re: [sv-bc] Re: [sv-ec] task/function actuals for mode "ref"

Hi Gord,

I see the same duplication issues that Shalom mentioned. Here is
what Firefox shows me for the "From" part of the proposal. I suspect
it has to do with Microsoft html extensions that aren't supported by
other browsers. The simplest way to work around this is to upload a pdf.

    "The semantics of assignments to variables passed by reference is that changes
     are seen outside the subroutine immediately (before the subroutine returns). Only
     variables, not nets, can be passed by reference.  Only variables, not nets, can
     be passed by reference."

Neil



Gordon Vreugdenhil wrote:
> 
> 
> Bresticker, Shalom wrote:
>> Gord,
>>
>> I don't think you mean 'ref mode', there is no such term as far as I
>> know. I guess you mean 'ref arguments'.
>>
>> In the proposal, in the FROM text, you duplicated the sentence, "Only
>> variables, not nets, can be passed by reference." It only appears once
>> in the LRM. Then in the TO text, you struck out the second, but that
>> still leaves the first.
> 
> I am confused -- the second what?  I didn't duplicate that
> sentence and I only found it once in the LRM.
> 
> 
>> You use the term "indexed select of an unpacked array". The term
>> "indexed select" does not appear in the LRM and is not defined. The
>> closest is "indexed part-select", referring to the [n+:p] syntax. I
>> don't think you meant that. Mantis 2169 also adds the term "non-indexed
>> part-select" to refer to the [m:n] syntax.
> 
> There really isn't a direct term for what I am trying to say.  The
> closest is from 7.4.6:
>    A single element of a packed or unpacked array can be selected using an
>    indexed name.
> 
> I meant an element of an unpacked array selected using a non-slice
> indexed name.
> 
> Please feel free to suggest a correct term, or I can use the
> verbose wording above.
> 
>> Your list of permitted ref arguments would seem to exclude
>> concatenations. That would be a narrower interpretation than 2097's.
> 
> Concats are not legal in a ref.  2097 in its entirety is not really
> "narrower" or "wider"; the term "variable" is what was too
> narrow for ref actuals.  There are some kinds of expressions
> that are valid lvals that are NOT valid as a ref.  Concats
> are one of those.  So 2097 allows some things that are not
> legal in refs and refs allow some things that are not permitted
> as the LHS of a force.
> 
> Gord.
> 
> 

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