This may not be legal(?) The example in clause 18.4.2 does not appear to work in the one implementation that I tried. Still need to look at this harder. We may need to fix this in a future version of the standard. Regards - Cliff At 01:18 AM 6/11/2009, jonathan.bromley@doulos.com wrote: > > [Cliff] found another working example of what I needed: > > > > process::self.srandom(seed); > >Yikes! Is this legal? I didn't think we could use a >method return result as the prefix to a .method() call. >Are the rules subtly bent for static methods? >-- >Jonathan Bromley ---------------------------------------------------- Cliff Cummings - Sunburst Design, Inc. 14314 SW Allen Blvd., PMB 501, Beaverton, OR 97005 Phone: 503-641-8446 / FAX: 503-641-8486 cliffc@sunburst-design.com / www.sunburst-design.com Expert Verilog, SystemVerilog, Synthesis and Verification Training -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Jun 11 09:54:04 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 11 2009 - 09:54:25 PDT