RE: [sv-ec] revised proposal for #1279 - coverpoint,cross visibility

Brad,

That is an excellent idea. BTW, the only reason it's called "class
resolution operator" is because it was introduced with classes, and
packages were designed later.

	Arturo

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Brad
Pierce
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 9:34 PM
To: sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ec] revised proposal for #1279 - coverpoint,cross
visibility

Yes, it is strange for 7.21 to be talking about packages as operands.
Maybe the LRM should be saying "scope resolution operator", instead of
"class scope resolution operator" or "package scope resolution
operator"?

>For the current proposal (#1279), is it acceptable to allow the left 
>operand of the class scope operator to be a class names, covergroup 
>names, coverpoint names or cross names? For example replace the above 
>statement with:
>  "The left operand of the class scope operator shall be a class
>   name, covergroup type name, coverpoint name or cover name."

-- Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan, Ray [mailto:Ray_Ryan@mentor.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 5:57 PM
To: Brad Pierce; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] revised proposal for #1279 - coverpoint,cross
visibility

Brad,

 Comments inserted below.

- Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Brad Pierce
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 5:15 PM
> To: sv-ec@server.eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-ec] revised proposal for #1279 - 
> coverpoint,cross visibility
> 
> Ray,
> 
> There is some conflict with
> 
>    http://eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1216

[Ray] It seems 1216 missed correcting the following statement 
in section 7.21.
  "Identifiers on the left side of the class scope resolution 
   operator :: can be class names or package names (see 19.2)."
In line with 1216, package names should not be listed as allowed on
the left side (operand) of the class scope operator.

For the current proposal (#1279), is it acceptable to allow the 
left operand of the class scope operator to be a class names, 
covergroup names, coverpoint names or cross names? For example
replace the above statement with:
  "The left operand of the class scope operator shall be a class
   name, covergroup type name, coverpoint name or cover name."

> 
> Also, in the new example, twice,
> 
>    "parameter" -?-> "formal"

[Ray] OK

> 
> Also, twice, 
> 
>    "in the following context" -?-> "in the following contexts"
> 

[Ray] OK

> And, in the original text and recapitulated in the proposal, 
> it talks about the left side of an operator.  Why not the 
> "left operand" of an operator?
> 

[Ray] The text used the terminology of the statement in 
section 7.21 (discussed above). I don't mind changing to
'left operand'.

> -- Brad
> 
> 
> 
>