Re: [sv-bc] enumerated variable used with an equality operator

IMHO current behaviour that 2 enums cannot have same enum labels is ok, 
also strong type checking only for assigning to enum is ok.

I think that there can be many arguments to support my point of view ie:
-  it is bad idea to deliberately define the behaviour of features well 
known  in programing in the opposite way that it is defined in other 
languages like ie C++.
- it is not good idea to use same label in 2 enums - different enums 
should describe different types so why they has to have same names
- If user really wants to have 2 enums with same enum label he can 
define them in different scopes ie packages.


DANiel

W dniu 3/26/2014 8:43 AM, Bresticker, Shalom pisze:
>
> In a somewhat similar vein, there is sometimes a problem with two enum 
> type declarations that use the same value names.
>
> Example:
>
> typedef enum { A, B, C } e_1 ;
>
> typedef enum { C, D, E } e_2 ;
>
> Currently you get a fatal syntax error on multiple declarations of C.
>
> I would like to propose that a case like this be treated like 
> importing packages.
>
> That is, you would not be able to reference C directly, but you would 
> be able to write e_1::C.
>
> Shalom
>
> *From:*owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Greg Jaxon
> *Sent:* Friday, March 21, 2014 20:37
> *To:* sv-bc@eda.org
> *Subject:* Re: [sv-bc] enumerated variable used with an equality operator
>
> ISO-C 5.5 holds that two enum types are always distinct.
> Following tradition, if Verilog has the same syntax as C, it must take 
> on a different meaning.
> To appeal to folks who believe in this guiding principle, I can offer 
> them this suggestion:
> The enum label exported to the declaring scope will be strongly typed 
> (C-like), but if you select it
> directly out of the enum scope itself, it will be weakly typed.
> Thus |TRUE == FALSE| would be a type-mismatch /error/ in a scope where 
> these were labels of distinct enums,
> even though |BLUE::TRUE == TEETH::FALSE| would be legal, and perhaps true.
> There, is that different enough from C so the pain of matching it 
> elsewhere is diminished? ;-)
>
> On 3/21/2014 12:16 PM, Brad Pierce wrote:
>
>     Enum types should be 100%-strong with the base type encodings accessible
>
>     via an enum method as inhttp://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=4887  .
>
>       
>
>     Such a method would still be useful even if weak enum typing must be
>
>     preserved for legacy reasons.
>
>       
>
>     Replying tohttp://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/11537.html  .
>
>       
>
>     -- Brad
>
>       
>
>       
>
>       
>
>
>
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>
>
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean. 


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