RE: [sv-bc] parameterized structures

Also, structs predate classes, going back to C and even earlier.

 

Shalom

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org
[mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org] On Behalf Of Feldman, Yulik
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 4:59 PM
To: Brad Pierce; sv-bc@server.verilog.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] parameterized structures

 

Given the dynamic nature of class objects compared to the static nature
of structures, I'm quite skeptical of a possibility of such definition.
If someone would like to unify SV classes and structures in some way,
that will not be such easy and may require considerable effort,
especially considering backward compatibility issues. Said that, it may
be a good idea, since that will make it easier for people familiar with
C++ to ramp-up on SV.

 

See also 1800 Section 7.25 "Classes and structures" for a list of
differences between classes and structures.

 

--Yulik.

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org
[mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org] On Behalf Of Brad Pierce
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:04 AM
To: sv-bc@server.verilog.org
Subject: Re: [sv-bc] parameterized structures

 

Are struct types really just syntactic sugar for a simple kind of class?

 

If so, could we explicitly define structs in terms of classes and get
the proposed parameterized struct types for free from the existing
definition of parameterized classes?

 

-- Brad