Subject: Re: Answer from "Arturo Salz"
Karen Pieper wrote:
> The wording we voted on last Monday actually has different wording for
So what is the difference, practically?
If we were to re-define ANSI C, I would love to change "char" to "byte",
Dave
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28
: Sat Jan 11 2003 - 14:30:38 PST
From: Dave Rich (David.Rich@synopsys.com)
Date: Sat Jan 11 2003 - 14:30:13 PST
> the two types.
> The underlying types are the same, but one is for "C" and the other is
> for SystemVerilog use.
but since we're not, let's keep it simple and stick with "char". Just
one less item on everyone's to-do list.
>
> K
>
>
> At 06:22 PM 1/11/03 +0100, Vassilios.Gerousis@Infineon.Com wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>
>
>
--
--
Dave Rich
Principal Engineer, CAE, VTG
Tel: 650-584-4026
Cell: 510-589-2625
DaveR@Synopsys.com