Subject: [Fwd: errata/250: A.8.3: Is expression redundant in range_expression?]
From: Shalom Bresticker (Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com)
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 06:46:07 PST
-- Shalom Bresticker Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com Design & Reuse Methodology Tel: +972 9 9522268 Motorola Semiconductor Israel, Ltd. Fax: +972 9 9522890 POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL Cell: +972 50 441478"The devil is in the details."
attached mail follows:
Precedence: bulk
>Number: 250 >Category: errata >Originator: Dan.Jacobi@intel.com >Environment: #123 SV-BC19-45, 47 >Description:
>From Dan Jacobi in SV-BC19-45 and 47:
In A.8.3,
constant_range_expression ::= constant_expression | msb_constant_expression : lsb_constant_expression | constant_base_expression +: width_constant_expression | constant_base_expression -: width_constant_expression
constant_range_expression is used only in net_lvalue. After the fix of #53,
net_lvalue ::= hierarchical_net_identifier {[constant_expression]}[[constant_range_expression]] | {net_lvalue {, net_lvalue}}
Thus, it seems that constant_expression is redundant in constant_range_expression as net_value already contains the constant_expression possiblity even without constant_range_expression.
Similarly, expression (or constant_expression, see issue #238) is already used everywhere that range_expression is used, so expression appears redundant in the definition of range_expression.
See also issue #123.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Jan 06 2003 - 06:46:32 PST