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

Francoise,

Actually, a class object (i.e. a handle) is indeed a singular type, and the LRM
is explicit about that.

If I recall correctly, the definition of singular was created precisely to include
class objects for operations such as $cast, set-membership, event operators,
and default arguments.

    Arturo

----- Original Message -----
From: Francoise Martinolle
To: 'Arturo Salz' ; 'Francoise Martinolle' ; sv-bc@eda.org
Cc: sv-ec@eda.org
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 1:10 PM
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] question about "type mismatch" in section 13 (mailboxes)

I meant to say that a class data type is not a singular type. Hence the definition of
singular type is incomplete because it only lists unpacked struct, unions and arrays.

Thanks for the clarification for type equivalence for mailbox messages.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Arturo Salz
  Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 3:44 PM
  To: Francoise Martinolle; sv-bc@eda.org
  Cc: sv-ec@eda.org
  Subject: 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 13:39:10 2005