You see neither What you get is zeroth : 0 first : 1 second : 2 third : 3 penultimate :4 last : 5 antelast : 6 The language can't prevent stupid people from doing stupid things. You could alsw write: typedef enum {five=0, three=1, six=2} float; float o; ... And confuse the heck out of people What's your point.? (You don't have to answer that :)) Dave@PDX ________________________________ From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org on behalf of Michael (Mac) McNamara Sent: Wed 12/14/2005 2:59 PM To: Brad Pierce; sv-bc@eda.org Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Function call without parenthesis OK, how about typedef enum { zeroth, first, second, third, penultimate, last, antelast } Ordinals; Ordinals o = o.first; forever begin $display( "%s : %d\n", o.name, o ); if( o == o.last ) break; o = o.next; end Do we see: zeroth first second third penultimate last antelast or first second third penultimate last ??? 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 Brad Pierce Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 12:19 PM To: sv-bc@eda.org Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Function call without parenthesis Neither of these are even legal syntax, because "trial" is a type identifier. If you want usages like that, we'd need to start allowing the :: operator on types, as suggested in http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/3310.html and recorded in http://eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=948 -- Brad -----Original Message----- From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Greg Jaxon Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:28 AM To: sv-bc@eda.org Subject: 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 JaxonReceived on Wed Dec 14 15:26:50 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 14 2005 - 15:27:14 PST