RE: [sv-bc] sign/width casting semantics

I'm OK with this semantics too.

--Yulik.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Brad Pierce
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 5:28 PM
To: sv-bc
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] sign/width casting semantics

It's time to cut the Gordian knot of signed'()/unsigned'()/N'().

Their history and the vague shadows it left behind in the LRM are a
distraction from our mission of crafting a clear and useful language
standard.

Let's start from a blank slate and find a simple semantics that is
obvious and natural to reason about. 

I still favor the semantics proposed in

    http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-bc/hm/7990.html

I'd be OK, too, with removing signed'()/unsigned'() and just fixing
N'().

-- Brad



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


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.


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