Re: [sv-bc] Mantis 3231 proposal

Shalom,

> If you want the LRM to allow functions with intra-assignments
> delays in nonblocking assignments, I think you will have to
> file this as a Mantis item.

I completely disagree. Already 13.4.4 explicitly sanctions the
use of nonblocking assignment by a function. The effect of
such an NBA, even if it has no intra-assignment delay, will
outlive the execution of the function. If you permit zero-delay
NBAs in a function, I can see no sane reason to forbid NBAs
with intra-assignment delay. Two out of three big-name
simulators agree with me.

The same reasoning applies to clocking drives and
nonblocking event triggers.

The restriction in 13.4.4, concerning functions that may
not have side-effects, of course still applies. But that
restriction is equally applicable to NBAs with no delay.
The only problem is the lack of clarity in resolving an
apparent contradiction between 13.4.4 and 13.4 bullet (a),
which is precisely what 3231 is about. The second
sentence in 13.4(a) desperately needs a rewrite,
partly because it's ungrammatical, but mainly to avoid
(or define) the meaningless phrase "time-controlling
statement".

Jonathan Bromley

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