Re: [sv-bc] comments on array literal section

>But then it gives literals with the '{} syntax, which is not
>similar to the C initializer syntax.  Why
>not say that array literals (and struct literals) resemble C
>initializers except that they include an apostrophe prefix.

My dictionary defines "resemble" as "to be like or similar to".
So if they resemble C initializers, then they are similar to
them also.  I don't see an issue here.

>Also, doesn't a replicate operator within an array or struct
>literal also require the apostrophe prefix?  So this should
>also be mentioned in the first sentence of this section.
>
>2) If '{1, 2, 3} is considered a literal, then why isn't an
>ordinary bitvector concatenation considered a literal?  In
>fact, given the complexity of array and struct assignment
>patterns, I don't think that section 3.7 is really the place
>for them.  Is there some special reason for including array
>and struct literals in chapter 3?  I also notice that the
>syntax for array and struct literals isn't even given in
>the syntax box at the top of chapter 3.

I agree that these things are not literals any more.  The
case being called a literal is just the constant case of
a more general type of expression now.

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com