RE: [sv-bc] DataTypes: wording for optional "var"

Hi Kathy,

I think it's a good time to introduce "var".

I only have one issue with this proposal:
What is the point of allowing an "optional" data type after var?
There are no backward compatability issues to deal with.
If there is no good reason for this optionality, I would prefer
that the LRM mandate the use of a data type after the var keyword.

Regards,
Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-btf@boyd.com [mailto:owner-btf@boyd.com] On
> Behalf Of Kathy McKinley
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:00 PM
> To: btf-dtype@boyd.com; sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: [sv-bc] DataTypes: wording for optional "var"
>
> I have appended some proposed wording for an optional "var" keyword
> in a variable declaration. Please send your feedback as soon
> as possible.
> Even if you think the wording is fine, can you please send mail
> indicating this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kathy
>
> SECTION 5.4. Variables:
>
> CHANGE:
>
> A variable declaration consists of a data type followed by one
> or more instances.
>
> shortint s1, s2[0:9];
>
> TO:
>
> One form of variable declaration consists of a data type
> followed by one
> or more instances.
>
> shortint s1, s2[0:9];
>
> Another form of variable declaration begins with the keyword "var".
> The data type is optional in this case. If a data type is not
> specified then the data type logic shall be inferred.
>
> var byte my_byte; // equivalent to "byte my_byte;"
>
> var v; // equivalent to "var logic v;"
>
> var enum bit { clear, error } status;
>
> input var logic data_in;
>
>
Received on Thu Nov 18 15:15:14 2004