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

I like this idea, but I agree that it is beyond the scope of this
proposal. I think that it would be worth bringing up when the var
proposal is discussed, just to get people thinking about it.

>Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:16:23 -0500 (EST)
>From: Steven Sharp <sharp@cadence.com>
>Subject: RE: [sv-bc] DataTypes: wording for optional "var"
>To: btf-dtype@boyd.com, sv-bc@eda.org, Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com
>
>>There would be an ambiguity on
>>
>> typedef my_logic ;
>>
>>Is that a forward typedef or
>>
>> typedef logic my_logic ;
>
>Good point. That is a bit of a flaw.
>
>
>>Otherwise it makes sense to me. The only BNF change needed would be
>>in A.2.1.3 and Syntax 3-2, in type_declaration, REPLACE
>>
>> data_type
>>
>>WITH
>>
>> data_type_or_implicit
>>
>>Plus some footnote to resolve the ambiguity of
>>
>> typedef my_logic ;
>
>I will withdraw the suggestion on the grounds that it is getting beyond
>the scope of this proposal, and we don't have much time. However, it
>might be something to keep in mind. It would be consistent. It would
>be nice that you could take whatever syntax appears in the data_type spot
>in a declaration and use that in a typedef for a type to replace it.
>
>Steven Sharp
>sharp@cadence.com
>
Received on Thu Nov 18 16:26:47 2004