Re: [sv-ec] Re: Feedback from Freescale on name resolution issues

Hi folks,

In our methodology, I think it would be quite rare to have a cumbersome select 
prefix - we're going to do our inline constraining in some kind of 
testcase-specific driver object and the object we're randomizing will be a local 
data member of that driver class or a function automatic which we access using a 
simple name. Our testbench people expect to use Neil's syntax, and don't see a 
problem with it.

The real issue I'm concerned about is not how to explicitly specify binding into 
the object, but how to explicitly specify binding into the local lexical scope. 
I think that's where we need the enhancement.

--Mike

Gordon Vreugdenhil wrote:
> 
> 
> Neil Korpusik wrote:
>> Jonathan Bromley wrote On 10/23/07 01:45 AM,:
>>> (7) In a modification of suggestion (2):  instead of putting
>>>     a list of names in the parens, provide just one identifier,
>>>     freely chosen by the programmer, which is to be treated as
>>>     an alias for the object being randomized:
>>>       obj.randomize() with (thing) {thing.x < thing.y + x;};
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps I am missing something here.
>>
>> Why can't we just use the following? Since obj is the thing
>> being randomized, why can't we just use 'obj.' when we need to
>> specify that the variables used in the with clause are within obj?
>>
>>    obj.randomize() with {obj.x < obj.y + x;};
> 
> Neil, I think that this would effectively remove the current
> special rules.  In addition,  this is painful if "obj" is a general
> select prefix -- users would want/need to create a temporary handle
> of the appropriate type to have manageable constraints.
> 
> Gord.
> 
> 
> 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.