RE: [sv-bc] RE: [sv-ec] Confusing packed struct assignment rules in LRM

Maybe your confusion comes from the fact that the sentence you quote
refers to packed aggregates, whereas the example is of an unpacked
structure.
 
Shalom


________________________________

	From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org
[mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
	Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 11:52 AM
	To: Bryan Bullis (bbullis)
	Cc: sv-bc
	Subject: [sv-bc] RE: [sv-ec] Confusing packed struct assignment
rules in LRM
	
	
	Brian,
	 
	It is not clear to me what your difficulty is with the first set
of examples, which are intended to be taken as a collective example.
Please clarify.
	 
	Also, just to be sure, the second set of examples, the illegal
ones, are intended to be read as a continuation of the first set, not as
an independent set.


		However the first set of examples seems to suggest
otherwise if the reader sees them as a collective example rather than
discrete examples taken on their own.  The next set of illegal examples
I believe are to be read as a set.  Meaning you can't do both assign
types together.
		
		Regards,
		Shalom 


	-- 
	This message has been scanned for viruses and 
	dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/>
, and is 
	believed to be clean. 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.