RE: [sv-ec] random resizing of associative array

I don't think this is the desired behavior, nor does the LRM even
remotely suggest this.

I would propose that we add an erratum explicitly saying that
randomize() shall not re-size an associative array and shall consider
the size and keys as state variables.

Dave



> 
> If this is the desired behavior, a dynamic array should
> be used.
> 
> To truly randomize an associative array I like Arturo's
> method of randomizing two dynamic arrays (one for the
> indices, the other for the value) - and then combining
> them to form the associative array. With this approach,
> constraints can be applied to the indices as well as
> the values.
> 
> If re-sizing of associative array is allowed, I believe
> many Users would expect behavior other than the dynamic
> array model. I would also expect questions (enhancement
> requests) about how to constrain the indices. I think
> it would be a better to simply not allow resizing of
> associative arrays - and recommend the two array method instead.
> 
> 
> Regarding the discussion about re-sizing an dynamic array
> of class handles. Issue #889 proposes that if the element
> type is a class handle, re-sizing is not supported. In
> this case, the value of array.size() is treated as state value.
> 
> - Ray
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vreugdenhil, Gordon
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 1:35 PM
> > To: Arturo Salz
> > Cc: Ryan, Ray; sv-ec@eda.org
> > Subject: Re: [sv-ec] random resizing of associative array
> >
> > That mostly answers my questions but leaves one important
> > issue open.  If I have indices (1, 3, 5) referring to
> > non-null class objects and specify a size constraint of 3, is
> > that an error?
> > I am not "resizing" but would be "reorganizing" the indices.
> > From a user perspective, this doesn't require class
> > construction so if we define it to be illegal (equivalent to
> > requiring class construction) then this needs to be made
> > explicit.  If this is legal then I would wonder about the
> > rules for determining the reinsertion order.
> > At the same time the LRM should clarify whether it is legal
> > if the indices were already (0, 1, 2).
> >
> > Gord.
> >
> >
> > Arturo Salz wrote:
> >
> > > Gord,
> > >
> > > Your example should end up with an array of size 3, whose
> > indices are
> > > (0, 1, 2), and the contents are randomized according to any
> > constraint.
> > > That's why I wrote that constraining the size of an
> > associative array
> > > can be treated in the same way as a dynamic array.
> > >
> > > If the element type is a class type then the array cannot
> > grow in size
> > > because the solver doesn't know how to create the
> > additional objects.
> > > Object creation as part of the constraint solution is a whole
> > > different discussion, which would lead to several enhancements.
> > >
> > > 	Arturo
> >
> > --
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Gordon Vreugdenhil                                503-685-0808
> > Model Technology (Mentor Graphics)                gordonv@model.com
> >