RE: [sv-ec] non-blocking event trigger

Interestingly, nonblocking events were proposed as an alternative to
persistent event triggers that eventually led to the in triggered()
method. In the reply to that message
	http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-ec/hm/0430.html 
I point out the drawbacks of using nonblocking event triggers in
verification code, however, you'll notice that I wrote "verification
phase". That is because when nonblocking event triggers were proposed,
we hadn't yet defined the existing scheduling semantics, and at that
time the proposal was indeed to have the equivalent of a Re-NBA region.
When the current scheduling semantics were defined, this was forgotten.

	Arturo

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Bresticker, Shalom
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 3:57 AM
To: Steven Sharp; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] non-blocking event trigger

The first proposal for nonblocking event triggers is in
http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-ec/hm/0411.html , by Jay Lawrence, from
January 6, 2003.

Shalom


> I believe these were suggested long before program blocks.  The idea
was
> just to give triggering of events the same options as assigning to
> registers.  If you view an event trigger as an update of an abstract
> variable that has the concept of a change but not an actual value,
then
> it is reasonable to allow a nonblocking update.  These were not
proposed
> for any specific use in program blocks, and the people proposing
program
> blocks may not have paid them much attention.