RE: [sv-bc] Deadline for detailed feedback on Data Types on Nets Proposal

For those of you that think 'reg' should be a variable object kind and
not a data type:

I find it strange that people refer to 'reg' as a variable and think
calling it a 'var' instead would be odd. Using 'reg' to describe
combinational logic is odd.

The 1364-2001 WG spent a lot of time renaming the term 'register' to
'variable' throughout the LRM. Now we have a chance to use an already
reserved keyword 'var' to declare a variable.

Jet-Lagged in Germany,

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Mark
Hartoog
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 11:09 PM
To: Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com; sv-bc@eda.org; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Deadline for detailed feedback on Data Types on
Nets Proposal

> I tend to agree that 'reg' should not be a data type and that it
> would be better to use 'reg' instead of 'var'.
>
> Could someone please remind us again of the arguments for keeping
> 'reg' as a data type that is equivalent to 'logic'?

I'm not sure what the history of arguments on this are, but this
declaration, which is now legal would become illegal:

typedef struct { reg a; } ST;
ST s;

Since the fields of a struct are not variables but only data types.

Mark Hartoog
700 E. Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA 94043
650 584-5404
markh@synopsys.com
Received on Mon Nov 15 15:26:58 2004