[sv-ec] RE: 0001721: Ballot comment #188 order used for find and find_index

Arturo,

 

I feel like I am going in circles. OOO

 

Then what does find_first and find_last mean if there is no order?

 

Dave

 

 

________________________________

From: Arturo Salz [mailto:Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 11:39 AM
To: Rich, Dave; Bresticker, Shalom; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: RE: 0001721: Ballot comment #188 order used for find and
find_index

 

Where does the LRM suggest that find returns an *ordered* set of
elements. I believe the LRM explicitly rules out any order for the
result - only that they satisfy the search criteria.

 

            Arturo

 

From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Rich, Dave
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:15 AM
To: Bresticker, Shalom; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: [sv-ec] RE: 0001721: Ballot comment #188 order used for find
and find_index

 

Forget unique() for the time being,how can find() return an ordered set
of elements that match the with clause if the array is traversed in an
unspecified order?

 

________________________________

From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 8:09 AM
To: Rich, Dave; sv-ec@server.eda.org
Subject: RE: 0001721: Ballot comment #188 order used for find and
find_index

 

What original order?

The 2009 LRM says, "The ordering of the returned elements is unrelated
to the ordering of the original array."

The 2005 LRM has a similar statement.

 

Shalom

	 

	
________________________________


	From: Rich, Dave [mailto:Dave_Rich@mentor.com] 
	Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 6:03 PM
	To: Bresticker, Shalom; sv-ec@server.eda.org
	Subject: RE: 0001721: Ballot comment #188 order used for find
and find_index

	So if I propose an ordering, should the original ordering of
unique/_index be preserved as well?

	 

	
________________________________


	From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com] 
	Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:55 PM
	To: Rich, Dave; sv-ec@server.eda.org
	Subject: RE: 0001721: Ballot comment #188 order used for find
and find_index

	 

	The text already says that the order is unspecified.

	From the comment in the description, "(e.g. traversal is left to
right of the bounds, associative is min to max)", it appears to me that
the desire was to specify an order.

	 

	Shalom

		 

		
________________________________


		From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org
[mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Rich, Dave
		Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 3:23 AM
		To: sv-ec@server.eda.org
		Subject: [sv-ec] 0001721: Ballot comment #188 order used
for find and find_index

		In reviewing this mantis item, I can't remember the
intent of the change being requested. 

		 

		Section 7.13.1 says  "Array locator methods traverse the
array in an unspecified order." and that make sense for all methods
other than find_first/_index and find_last/_index. Those methods seem
like they should have an order

		 

		Was there some desire to specify an order for
find/_index, or to specify that the result ordering is unrelated to the
original array (like unique/_index)?

		
		-- 
		This message has been scanned for viruses and 
		dangerous content by MailScanner
<http://www.mailscanner.info/> , 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is

believed to be clean. 


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