I've uploaded a pdf version of the 2235 proposal. I haven't dealt with Shalom's other concerns until there is agreement on language. Gord. Neil Korpusik wrote: > Hi Gord, > > I see the same duplication issues that Shalom mentioned. Here is > what Firefox shows me for the "From" part of the proposal. I suspect > it has to do with Microsoft html extensions that aren't supported by > other browsers. The simplest way to work around this is to upload a pdf. > > "The semantics of assignments to variables passed by reference is > that changes > are seen outside the subroutine immediately (before the subroutine > returns). Only > variables, not nets, can be passed by reference. Only variables, > not nets, can > be passed by reference." > > Neil > > > > Gordon Vreugdenhil wrote: >> >> >> Bresticker, Shalom wrote: >>> Gord, >>> >>> I don't think you mean 'ref mode', there is no such term as far as I >>> know. I guess you mean 'ref arguments'. >>> >>> In the proposal, in the FROM text, you duplicated the sentence, "Only >>> variables, not nets, can be passed by reference." It only appears once >>> in the LRM. Then in the TO text, you struck out the second, but that >>> still leaves the first. >> >> I am confused -- the second what? I didn't duplicate that >> sentence and I only found it once in the LRM. >> >> >>> You use the term "indexed select of an unpacked array". The term >>> "indexed select" does not appear in the LRM and is not defined. The >>> closest is "indexed part-select", referring to the [n+:p] syntax. I >>> don't think you meant that. Mantis 2169 also adds the term "non-indexed >>> part-select" to refer to the [m:n] syntax. >> >> There really isn't a direct term for what I am trying to say. The >> closest is from 7.4.6: >> A single element of a packed or unpacked array can be selected >> using an >> indexed name. >> >> I meant an element of an unpacked array selected using a non-slice >> indexed name. >> >> Please feel free to suggest a correct term, or I can use the >> verbose wording above. >> >>> Your list of permitted ref arguments would seem to exclude >>> concatenations. That would be a narrower interpretation than 2097's. >> >> Concats are not legal in a ref. 2097 in its entirety is not really >> "narrower" or "wider"; the term "variable" is what was too >> narrow for ref actuals. There are some kinds of expressions >> that are valid lvals that are NOT valid as a ref. Concats >> are one of those. So 2097 allows some things that are not >> legal in refs and refs allow some things that are not permitted >> as the LHS of a force. >> >> Gord. >> >> -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Vreugdenhil 503-685-0808 Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Tue Jan 15 14:44:30 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 15 2008 - 14:45:06 PST