>From: Gordon Vreugdenhil <gordonv@model.com> >I do agree that requiring a top-down ordering could be required >but only until encountering a case that warns. So once you >issue a warning, no further evaluation is required and whether >evaluation of case items which are between the first match >and the match which conceptually causes the warning is implementation >defined. > >I think that gives us a reasonable approach -- if you have a >well-formed unique case, then you get top-down predictability. >Only when you have an ill-formed case, do you lose some predictability. >While I agree with Steven that I don't want to penalize *all* >side-effects, I don't mind penalizing an ill-formed unique case >with side-effects. I don't have a problem with the idea of this approach. However, I think it would be difficult to write clear LRM text describing this idea of a match which conceptually causes a warning. It would be a lot of text to describe a situation which doesn't seem common enough to warrant it. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Mon Nov 19 12:27:41 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 19 2007 - 12:27:52 PST