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

I've uploaded a proposal that addresses the ordering for
find_first/last, leaving the traversal order unspecified.

The ordering is defined by the array type. left, to right index for
unpacked arrays, first to last for associative arrays.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org]
On
> Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 7:25 PM
> To: Arturo Salz; Jonathan Bromley; sv-ec@server.eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ec] RE: 0001721: Ballot comment #188 order used for
find
> and find_index
> 
> How are indices ordered for an associative array when the index type
is a
> user-defined type? The LRM says, "the relative ordering of any two
entries
> in such an associative array can vary, even between successive runs of
the
> same tool. However, the relative ordering shall remain the same within
the
> same simulation run while no indices have been added or deleted." That
is,
> there is an order, but "smallest" and "largest" are not appropriate
terms,
> either.
> 
> As for dynamic arrays, surely a dynamic array is considered as being
[0:N-1].
> For example, one can take a slice from it.
> 
> > It is precisely because of associative arrays that the
> > smallest/largest index order is relevant. Left and right
> > indices are not well defined for an associative array, but
> > its indices do have a well defined ordering.
> 
> Regards,
> Shalom
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
> 


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