Answer from "Arturo Salz" <Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com>]


Subject: Answer from "Arturo Salz" ]
From: Vassilios.Gerousis@Infineon.Com
Date: Sat Jan 11 2003 - 09:22:19 PST


Brad,

The issue is that if you look at the LRM, you'll find two identical types
now: byte and char.
Both are defined as a signed 2-state, 8-bit integer. Surely we don't need
two identical types,
specially when we are trying to minimize the addition of new keywords.

    Arturo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Pierce" <bpierce@synopsys.COM>
To: "Arturo Salz" <Arturo.Salz@synopsys.COM>; "David W. Smith"
<david.smith@synopsys.COM>;
<sv-ec@eda.org>; <sv-bc@eda.org>; <sv-cc@eda.org>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 10:09 AM
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Unicode

Arturo,

I don't think 'byte' is *conceptually* redundant. If anything, 'byte' is a
more basic concept than 'char'. We shouldn't force people to say 'char'
when they mean 'byte'.

-- Brad



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Jan 11 2003 - 09:22:50 PST