<forwarding bounced email from Vreugdenhil, Gordon> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Re: [sv-ec] task/function actuals for mode "ref" Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:39:20 -0800 From: "Vreugdenhil, Gordon" <gordon_vreugdenhil@mentor.com> To: "Arturo Salz" <Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com>, "Steven Sharp" <sharp@cadence.com> Cc: <Neil.Korpusik@sun.com>, <shalom.bresticker@intel.com>, <sv-bc@server.eda.org>, <sv-ec@server.eda.org> I certainly agree that since consts, parameters, literals, etc. are not lvals, they aren't allowed for normal ref formals. But there is a related sub-question on that. Since a "const ref" is not an lval, I have been assuming that a "const" variable (at least) is a valid actual for=20 a const ref. I think that I'd be prepared to allow a parameter or localparam as well. Literals, concats, etc. I'd probably want to leave off although I could be convinced otherwise. Gord. -----Original Message----- From: Arturo Salz [mailto:Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com] Sent: Wed 1/16/2008 6:05 PM To: Vreugdenhil, Gordon; Steven Sharp Cc: Neil.Korpusik@sun.com; shalom.bresticker@intel.com; sv-bc@eda.org; sv-e= c@eda.org Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Re: [sv-ec] task/function actuals for mode "ref" =20 It probably wouldn't hurt to add that constants are also disallowed as ref arguments. Arturo -----Original Message----- From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Vreugdenhil Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:54 PM To: Steven Sharp Cc: Neil.Korpusik@sun.com; shalom.bresticker@intel.com; sv-bc@eda.org; sv-ec@eda.org Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Re: [sv-ec] task/function actuals for mode "ref" Steven Sharp wrote: > The proposal looks reasonable to me. >=20 > The phrase "a member select of a class property" might be misinterpreted > as meaning that you apply a member select to a class property. I assume > that the intent was a member select whose result is a class property (i.e. > not a class method). It might be better to just say "a class property" > instead of "a member select of a class property."=20=20 Sigh. I probably need to just generalize this all properly since "a class property" has the same issues as "a variable". The real restriction is a recursive definition involving variables, properties, selects and types. It is really ugly to write that down in precise terms without it becoming a huge definition. > Note also that it is > OK to pass a class property from inside the class, without using an > explicit member select to access it (though you could argue that it is > an implicit member select via 'this'). As far as I can see, if there is > any way to reference a class property besides a member select, it is still > OK to pass it. Yup. See my above comments. Even if you have: some_property.some_field_of_type_class.some_other_property it is still Ok. The entire definition is recursive on the fundamental issues -- you can't end up picking off "part of" a packed thing. I am very busy right now on multiple fronts. I'm not going to try to rewrite this unless we're sure that we can get this into the 2008 spec yet. Gord. --=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Fri Jan 18 17:27:47 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jan 18 2008 - 17:28:26 PST