Subject: [sv-bc] Fwd: Re: Dispatch of Kruse errata (1038)
From: Karen Pieper (Karen.Pieper@synopsys.com)
Date: Sun Sep 28 2003 - 10:34:41 PDT
>Reply-To: <bpierce@synopsys.COM>
>From: "Brad Pierce" <bpierce@synopsys.COM>
>To: "Karen Pieper" <pieper@synopsys.COM>
>Subject: Re: Dispatch of Kruse errata (1038)
>Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:47:20 -0700
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
>Importance: Normal
>
>Karen,
>
>According to Arturo, the following syntax is indeed legal --
>
> enum { color[4]=16 ; } ;
>
> enum { color[4:7]=16 } ;
>
>and he says "The lack of documentation is simply a silly omission
>from the LRM. We should just add it."
>
>------------- 3.10.2 -----------------------------------
>
>Enumerated type ranges --
>
> Does the current BNF fully support the enumerated type range syntax
> described in 3.10.2?
>
> Typo in 3rd row of Table 3-3. "1N" --> "1. N"
>
> The original question asks about the semantics of the following
>declaration,
> but this is probably not legal anyway. (Is it?)
>
> enum { sum[5] = 10 } ;
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Sep 28 2003 - 10:38:55 PDT