[sv-bc] Re: [sv-ec] question about "type mismatch" in section 13 (mailboxes)

The mailbox section was reviewed before "matching types" were defined.
Hence, the intent was "type equivalence", which is also consistent with
pass-by-reference semantics.

By the way, now that matching and equivalent types mean different things,
the use of "matched" and "equivalent" in Section 10.4.2 could benefit from
some wordsmithing:

"Arguments passed by reference must be matched by equivalent data types."

I don't understand the comment about "it should also say classes".

    Arturo

----- Original Message -----
From: Francoise Martinolle
To: sv-bc@eda.org
Cc: sv-ec@eda.org
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 11:05 AM
Subject: [sv-ec] question about "type mismatch" in section 13 (mailboxes)

It is not clear in chapter 13 which describes mailboxes, to which category of type compatibility
do the mailbox functions get(), try_get() and try_peek() refer to.

The description states that a runtime error msg occurs if there is a "type mismatch" between the
message variable and the message in the mailbox.

I note that the variable is passed by reference and its data type is described as "singular".
A singular data type is any data type except an unpacked structure, union or array (by the
way it should also say classes).

Does the message variable need to have a matching type (5.9.1) with the type of the message in the mailbox?
or does it need to have an equivalent type (5.9.2)?
It matters for packed structs, packed unions and packed arrays where the rules are different.

Francoise
       '
Received on Mon Feb 14 12:43:06 2005