RE: [sv-ec] Definition of access for class parameters.

Hi,

This is the first time I have looked at this.

The term "parameter", unless specifically qualified as "value parameter" or "type parameter", is a generic term including both. If the term "parameter" is intended to specify only value parameters, it needs to say so explicitly. On the other hand, if both are meant, there is no need to specify both.

Thus, for example, where 8.17 says, "Class parameters and class local parameters are also public," this includes both value and type parameters.

Where 8.22 says, "A class parameter, type parameter or local param is a public element of a class," the use of "type parameter" is redundant because it is included in "class parameter".

The text should be consistent in order to avoid confusion.

The use of "local param" should be avoided. It should be either "local parameter" or "localparam".

At the end of the proposal, on page 4, there is some extra text.

Thanks,
Shalom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Francoise Martinolle
> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 1:31 AM
> To: Gordon Vreugdenhil
> Cc: sv-ec@server.eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Definition of access for class parameters.
> 
>  
> Second version of the class parameter specification which addresses
> Gordon's comments.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon Vreugdenhil [mailto:gordonv@model.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 4:54 PM
> To: Francoise Martinolle
> Cc: sv-ec@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Definition of access for class parameters.
> 
> Francoise, this looks pretty good to me.  Thanks for working 
> through the
> details there.
> 
> One detail lies in the grammar -- a constant_primary only admits a
> ps_parameter_identifier which does allow the syntactic form name::name
> but where the LRM uses package_name to indicate intent for the prefix.
> Ideally I think that should be fixed in the grammar.
> We might also consider explicitly stating that 
> class_type::parameter is
> a constant expression.  That likely isn't needed with the grammar
> change, but it makes the asymmetry with the "this." and "super."
> more explicit and obviously intentional.
> 
> Gord.
> 
> Francoise Martinolle wrote:
> > Attached is a proposal for specifying access to class 
> parameters, type
> 
> > parameters and local class parameters.
> >  
> > Mantis is not working so I have not uploaded the proposal.
> >  
> > Francoise
> >        '
> > 
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by 
> > *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is believed to be 
> > clean.
> 
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
> 
> 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.


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