RE: [sv-ec] inline constraints -- things are not really quite right yet (perhaps)

Jonathan Bromley wrote:
> I hope this isn't a duplicate - my original message didn't 
> seem to make it to the reflector.
> ...
> If you can live with the idea that the presence of "local::"
> forces unqualified names to be resolved as if written in a 
> constraint inside the target class, then there is a remaining 
> problem of how to write an unambiguous constraint in which 
> *only* class members participate.  The lack of any local:: in 
> such a constraint would make us lapse back to the 
> compatibility behaviour, allowing unqualified references to 
> leak out of the class.  I guess you could fix this 
> (unpleasantly) thus:
> 
>   parameter TRUE = 1;
>   c.randomize() with { x < y; local::TRUE; };
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> As a convenience feature, I would also suggest that
> *anything* with a local:: qualifier should be treated as a 
> state variable for the constraint, so that (as I suggested in 
> an earlier post)
> 
>   c.randomize() with {x != local::c.x;}; 
> 
> would unambiguously mean "randomize c.x so that it gets a 
> value different from its present value".

This would be a nice convenience. However, it would be better if
this feature was also available in a regular constraint (inside
the class) rather than just in inline-constraints.


- Ray 

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