RE: [sv-ec] Abstract classes and virtual methods

Assume I had said "This is a major hole in the LRM but will not require
a BNF change." 

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Arturo Salz
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:11 PM
To: Brad Pierce; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Abstract classes and virtual methods

 

Brad,

 

That is correct. The "extern function" and "extern task" syntactic
construct is already part of the language. That syntax

is currently only documented to designate out-of-body methods. Dave is
proposing that the same syntax be used to designate undefined methods in
order to resolve the existing ambiguity.

 

            Arturo

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Brad
Pierce
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:56 PM
To: sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Abstract classes and virtual methods

 

Dave,

 

>so I am suggesting we use the same extern syntax as we do in
SystemVerilog. This is a >major hole in the LRM and will require a BNF
change.

 

It looks like your example of 'extern' usage is accepted by the BNF,
plus there's no BNF change in the proposal.  ???

 

-- Brad