Re: [sv-bc] operator naming

Hello all;

If you want clarity, then make 'strong' a keyword so you have "strong 
always"  instead of strong_always.

Bresticker, Shalom wrote:
> I like this suggestion.
> As one who is always talking about clarity, I should have thought of 
> it myself.
>  
> Regards,
> Shalom
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* Feldman, Yulik
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, September 18, 2007 12:26 PM
>     *To:* Bresticker, Shalom; sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org
>     *Cc:* sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
>     *Subject:* RE: [sv-bc] operator naming
>
>     Since the operators in angle brackets represent the strong
>     versions of the corresponding operators, why not to depict that
>     fact in their names, by naming these operators like
>     "strong_always" or "s_always". This will make the language and the
>     code easier to understand. If there is a concern of introducing
>     new keywords, then I would say that readability of the code is
>     much more important than a very unlikely backward incompatibility,
>     which can be workarounded by features like 'begin/end_keywords
>     directives, tool-specific language compatibility options or simple
>     fixing of the code. A rare backward incompatibility issue may be
>     fixed, but, if the operators are unclearly named, the reduced
>     readability will stay forever.
>
>      
>
>     --Yulik.
>
>      
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     *From:* owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org
>     [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] *On Behalf Of *Bresticker, Shalom
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, September 18, 2007 12:08 PM
>     *To:* sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org
>     *Cc:* sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
>     *Subject:* [sv-bc] operator naming
>
>      
>
>     Hi,
>
>     SV-AC is working on a proposal (Mantis 1932) to introduce LTL
>     operators. Never mind for now what they do.
>
>     Their problem is one of naming. There are two versions of each
>     operator. The question is how to name the alternate version.
>
>     For example, if one operator is 'always', then two suggestions for
>     its dual are '<always>', and 'always$'.
>
>     Are either of these acceptable as a naming convention, or does
>     anyone have a better suggestion?
>
>     Thanks,
>     Shalom
>
>     Shalom Bresticker
>     Intel Jerusalem LAD DA
>     +972 2 589-6852
>     +972 54 721-1033
>
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Intel Israel (74) Limited
>
>      
>
>     This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
>
>     the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
>
>     by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
>
>     recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>
>
>     -- 
>     This message has been scanned for viruses and
>     dangerous content by *MailScanner*
>     <http://www.mailscanner.info/>*, and is
>     believed to be clean. *
>
> *---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> *
> *
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean. *

-- 
    Soli Deo Gloria
    Adam Krolnik
    Director of Design Verification
    VeriSilicon Inc.
    Plano TX. 75074
    Co-author "Assertion-Based Design"


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