Re: [sv-bc] Function call without parenthesis

More to the point would be this example:

    typedef enum {
       original=0,
       first=1,
       second,
       third,
       penultimate,
       last,
       out_of_bounds
    } trial;

Is trial.first  equal to 0 or 1?  How about trial.first()?

Greg Jaxon

Michael (Mac) McNamara wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
>