RE: [sv-bc] Function call without parenthesis

Backward incompatible with what?  I'm going down a different path.  I am
afraid that 
allowing variable attribute inquiry functions to look like hierarchial
references 
_introduces_ backwards incompatibility of 1800 with 1364.

I will ask my backward incompatibility question again.

Is the following 1364 code legal in 1800? :

module foo;
   reg [31;0] first;
endmodule
 
Perhaps it is not legal in 1800 because "first" is now a reserved word.
Or perhaps it is still legal, as the only restricted use of first is as
a variable attribute inquiry method call.

If it is still legal to have the module foo above in 1800, then the next
question is concerning the legality of this 1364 complaint code:

module foo;
   reg [15:0] first;
   initial first = 6144;
endmodule

module bar;
   foo f1();
   initial #10 $display("f1.first is %x compliant",f1.first);
endmodule

Is this above code legal in 1800?  If it is, then I submit that we will
be confusing users as we also allow f1.first to ask about a variable
named f1 that is an enum. (similarily with len, size, et cetera)

Michael McNamara
mcnamara@cadence.com
408-914-6808 work
408-348-7025 cell


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Rich, Dave
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:21 AM
To: Paul Graham
Cc: sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Function call without parenthesis

Paul,

This is a backward incompatible change. Can you provide the technical
justification for this? I'm not saying there is no justification; just
that it needs to be explained for us to move on it. So far I have heard
nothing other than editorial comments.

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Graham [mailto:pgraham@cadence.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:14 AM
> To: Rich, Dave
> Cc: sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Function call without parenthesis
> 
> > Welcome to the wonderful world of object oriented programming. You
> > should be glad SystemVerilog didn't put in all of C++.
> 
> Too bad.  I notice that C++ doesn't follow the UAP for
> function calls of no arguments.  In fact, requiring parens
> makes it possible to define operator().  Try doing that in
> Ada!
> 
> As a technical issue, I'd like to suggest that () be
> required on a function or method call of no args, except in
> the case of a system function or task.
> 
> Paul