Re: [sv-bc] E-Mail Vote - Closes Midnight Oct 10

I think proposal 43 tries to put some distance between LRM terminology
and the classical "by-name" argument passing convention:
http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=call-by-name

Brad Pierce wrote:
> How can we just "leave it the way it is", when the LRM claims that
> SystemVerilog has pass-by-name semantics? The reason the proposal
> does not change all references to "argument passing" is that they
> are not all wrong. The argument passing in SystemVerilog can be
> by value, by value-result, or by reference. The argument binding can
> be by position or by name.
>
>
>>043 ___Yes __ XXX _No
>>http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000043
>>
>>I do not see what is being accomplished by this change. It does not change
>
> all >references to 'argument passing' to 'argument binding', and it does not
> mention >output arguments. I would rather leave it the way it is.
>
> -- Brad
>
>
Received on Tue Oct 5 17:03:55 2004