Re: [sv-bc] Type of a concat expression

Where does the LRM make it illegal to do

   localparam type T = type({a,b});

?

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Surya Pratik Saha
<spsaha@cal.interrasystems.com> wrote:
> Hi Brad,
> My original question was - how a type of a general form of expression
> (concatenation, binary etc.) is determined when used inside type operator.
> It seems to me from this discussion that - except simple variable identifier
> or select usage of it (from which its type is easily determined from
> declaration), other expression usage there does not add any meaning. So my
> original example -
> type ({a, b}) == type (byte)
> is actually illegal or somewhat misleading. Since LRM is not clear on that
> so all the confusions come up.
>
> If we all agree on that I can file a Mantis for LRM clarification in future.
>
> Regards
> Surya
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message  --------
> Subject: Re:[sv-bc] Type of a concat expression
> From: Brad Pierce <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com>
> To: sv-bc@eda.org <sv-bc@eda.org>
> Date: Saturday, June 19, 2010 5:03:30 AM
>>
>> Surya,
>>
>> The "automatic compatibility" issue is irrelevant to your original topic
>> of this thread, which was the "type of a concat expression", because a
>> concatenation is a primary, and the type and evaluation of a primary, unless
>> it is of the form ( mintypmax_expression ), are immune to the statement
>> context in which it is embedded.
>>
>> Do you feel certain now about the type of a concatenation? If not, which
>> questions about it do you still consider unresolved?
>>
>> -- Brad
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.