RE: [sv-ec] Question about seeding $urandom

Brad,

I believe the BNF has long since allowed it, but there are no semantics
in the name resolution rules that define the behavior of chaining
methods. That is mantis 2735.

Some, but not all, ambiguities have been eliminated by deprecating
'function static' methods (mantis 2035)

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org]
On
> Behalf Of Brad Pierce
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:47 AM
> To: sv-ec@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Question about seeding $urandom
> 
> This is legal.  For the history, all the way back to 3.1a, see
> 
>      http://www.eda-stds.org/sv/sv-champions/hm/0554.html
> 
> -- Brad
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Ryan, Ray
> [Ray_Ryan@mentor.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:25 AM
> To: Jonathan Bromley
> Cc: owner-sv-ec@eda.org; sv-ec@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Question about seeding $urandom
> 
> I agree that
> 
>         process::self().srandom(seed)
> 
> is NOT legal (because this uses a return result as a prefix).
> 
> This would be more apparent if the empty paren's weren't
> optional on function calls.
> 
> - Ray
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org
> > [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Bromley
> > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 1:19 AM
> > To: Cliff Cummings
> > Cc: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org; sv-ec@server.eda.org
> > Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Question about seeding $urandom
> >
> > > [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
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > believed to be clean.
> >
> >
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 


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