Re: [sv-ec] Comments on updated event proposal


Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Comments on updated event proposal
From: Stefen Boyd (stefen@boyd.com)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 11:47:14 PST


At 08:51 AM 3/13/2003 -0500, Jay Lawrence wrote:
>I think we should treat wait_order the same way we treated $cast. It is
>either a function or a task depending on how it is called. If used as a
>task then it prints an error. If used as a function it returns a status.
>So rather than inventing a new use for => you could just say.
>
> success = wait_order(a, b, c);
>Or
> success <= wait_order(a, b, c);
>
>Using existing assignment operators.

The only problem here is that everything else that behaves
as a function is not permitted to consume time. It seems
a little strange to have an NBA that blocks because the
expression on the rhs is blocking...

It would seem that substituting "else" for "=>" would be
a bit more natural. It's the way SV3.0 assertions worked:

wait_order ( event_identifier { , event_identifier } ) ;
| wait_order ( event_identifier { , event_identifier } ) else statement_or_null

Stefen



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Mar 13 2003 - 11:48:28 PST