RE: [sv-bc] confusion in determining the type of an self determined binary expression during evalution of type operator

'select' is a general term.
 
But there are cases which are different rules. Vector bit-selects and
part-selects have different rules from array slices in what you can do
with them.
 
Shalom


________________________________

	From: Feldman, Yulik 
	Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 9:08 AM
	To: Bresticker, Shalom
	Cc: 'sv-bc@server.eda.org'
	Subject: RE: [sv-bc] confusion in determining the type of an
self determined binary expression during evalution of type operator
	
	

	My main issue is that there are too many different terms,
describing special cases of "selects", instead of having a single
general term describing any kind of "select". Even if the existing terms
are used consistently, when they are used, the variety of the terms and
the lack of one general term cause confusion.

	 

	--Yulik.

	 

	
________________________________


	From: Bresticker, Shalom 
	Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 10:18 PM
	To: Feldman, Yulik
	Cc: 'sv-bc@server.eda.org'
	Subject: RE: [sv-bc] confusion in determining the type of an
self determined binary expression during evalution of type operator

	 

	I checked and found that 'part-select' and 'bit-select' are used
consistently. 'Slice' seems also used consistently.

	 

	Shalom 

		 

		
________________________________


		From: Feldman, Yulik 
		Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 5:31 PM
		To: Bresticker, Shalom
		Cc: 'sv-bc@server.eda.org'
		Subject: RE: [sv-bc] confusion in determining the type
of an self determined binary expression during evalution of type
operator

		Yes, and somebody has to clean this mess. The
definitions as they appear right now have little sense and, not
surprisingly, are not used consistently through the LRM. For example,
the 7.4.6 section with its definitions of part-select, slice, slice name
and indexed name, creates such a big confusion that any further
references to these terms leave the reader in complete prostration. Not
surprisingly, the terms like "slice name" are not even used anywhere
aside their definition. The presence of additional related definitions
in other sections makes the situation even worse. The LRM should have
been defined a single term, like "select", or "part select", or even
"slice" to refer universally to any kind of  "select" and then should
have used this term everywhere. Perhaps it would be OK to have a couple
of specialized terms likes "field select" to ease explanation in certain
cases, but in majority of references a single general term should have
been used, to avoid confusion.

		 

		--Yulik.

		 

		
________________________________


		From: Bresticker, Shalom 
		Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 11:40 AM
		To: Feldman, Yulik
		Cc: sv-bc@server.eda.org
		Subject: RE: [sv-bc] confusion in determining the type
of an self determined binary expression during evalution of type
operator

		 

		7.4.6 defines 'part-select' and 'slice'.

		 

		11.5.1 defines 'bit-select' and 'part-select'.

		 

		11.5.3 defines 'field select' and 'indexing select'.

		 

		11.5.3 uses 'array select', but that is not used
elsewhere.

		 

		Table 10-1 use 'Array element select' but 'element
select' is not used elsewhere.

		 

		'member select' is not used anywhere.

		 

		9.2.2.1 uses 'select expression'.

		 

		11.5.3 uses 'select'.

		 

		Shalom

			 

			[Yulik] The problem here is that the LRM is very
confusing on the definition of the related terminology. I have tried to
raise this issue in the past, but it didn't get much attention. The end
result is that I and all my colleagues just use the "part select" term
as a universal term describing any kind of "select"/"slice"/"part
select"/"bit select"/"member select", even that we know that strictly
speaking LRM assigns some other mysterious meaning to this term. It
looks that you're using the term "select" for such a universal meaning;
but I don't think LRM clearly defines it as such either.

			 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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, and is
believed to be clean.