Arturo Salz wrote: > Gord, > > > > I have a few issues with your suggested language: > > > > The scope for resolution of variable names referenced in a constraint > block begins with the _class type_ of the _reference_ > > to the "randomize()...with" object. If a name fails to resolve > within the class of the reference, the name is resolved > > normally starting in the scope containing the inline constraint. > > A class **is** a type so “class type” is redundant. Fair enough. > Using “reference” here is confusing since the LRM only talks about > “object handles” or commonly just “object”. Also, a > reference might be confused with a “ref” argument. Ok. > That is why I used “the class of the object used in the call to > randomize” which is > > “the class (type) of the object (reference) > used in the call to randomize” > > > > Perhaps the following: “the type of the object handle used in the call > to randomize” That wording I like - it really is the handle type that is the key here. Very good suggestion. I think that deals with the concerns I have. > As for the final addition suggested, my tentative proposal already > includes the following: > > Names qualified by *this *or *super *shall bind to the > randomize()...*with *object class > > So perhaps we can use the same language here: > > Names qualified by *this *or *super *shall bind to class of object > handle used in the call to randomize . I think that is Ok. Certainly good enough that I don't think that readers would have a reasonable basis for claiming anything dynamic. Thanks for working through the wording! Gord. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Vreugdenhil 503-685-0808 Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Dec 19 13:26:08 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 19 2007 - 13:26:30 PST