RE: [sv-bc] Aggregate expressions

It sure is - essentially it's an anonymous variable.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org]
On
> Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 11:31 PM
> To: Greg Jaxon
> Cc: sv-bc
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Aggregate expressions
> 
> But an assignment pattern is not a data object.
> 
> Shalom
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg Jaxon [mailto:Greg.Jaxon@synopsys.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 6:14 PM
> >
> > How about?
> >
> > "Unpacked structure and array data objects, including those
> > constructed using assignment patterns, can be combined into
> > aggregate expressions."
> >
> > The paragraph that follows /is/ sort of a hodge podge.
> > Sentences seems to just be throwing some things into the pot
> > of "unpacked data object"
> > and others throw operators like equality into the pot of
> > aggregate expression.
> > I agree that ?: is an aggregate expression operator.
> >
> > We're a long way from thinking of this as a first class array
> > language.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > Bresticker, Shalom wrote:
> > > Does anyone object to the editor replacing 'constructors' with
> > > 'assignment patterns'?
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > >     *From:* owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org
> > >     [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] *On Behalf Of
> > *Bresticker, Shalom
> > >     *Sent:* Thursday, February 28, 2008 12:20 PM
> > >
> > >     I also don't think the term 'aggregate expression' is
> > well defined.
> > >
> > >     I also don't think the first sentence makes sense:
> > >     "Unpacked structure and array data objects, as well as
unpacked
> > >     structure and array constructors, can all be used as aggregate
> > >     expressions."
> > >
> > >     What is meant by "unpacked structure and array
> > constructors," which
> > >     are different from data objects?
> > >
> > >     The version of this sentence in SV 3.1a is,
> > >
> > >     "Unpacked structure and array variables, literals, and
> > expressions
> > >     can all be used as aggregate expressions."
> > >
> > >     So "literals and expressions" are contrasted to "variables".
In
> > >     1800, we still have structure and array "literals". But what
are
> > >     called structure and array "expressions" in 3.1a, are now
called
> > >     "assignment patterns". Since structure and array
> > literals are a form
> > >     of assignment patterns, I think "constructors" in the sentence
> > >     should be replaced with "assignment patterns".
> > >
> > >     Shalom
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> \
> > >          *From:* owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org
> > >         [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] *On Behalf Of
> > *Bresticker,
> > >         Shalom
> > >         *Sent:* Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:47 AM
> > >
> > >         I don't think this paragraph was intended to be a
> > complete list.
> > >
> > >         Shalom
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > >             *From:* owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org
> > >             [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] *On Behalf
> > Of *danielm
> > >             *Sent:* Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:40 AM
> > >
> > >             1800-2005 states :
> > >             Unpacked structure and array data objects, as well as
> > >             unpacked structure and array constructors, can
> > all be used
> > >             as aggregate expressions. A multi-element slice of an
> > >             unpacked array can also be used as an aggregate
> > expression.
> > >             Aggregate expressions can be copied in an assignment,
> > >             through a port, or as an argument to a task or
function.
> > >             Aggregate expressions can also be compared with
> > equality or
> > >             inequality operators. To be copied or compared,
> > the type of
> > >             an aggregate expression must be equivalent. See 6.9.2.
> > >             IMHO there is more expression when aggregate
> > expression are
> > >             sensible i.e: conditional operator (?:), function
return
> > >             value. Maybe there are more?
> > >
> > >             Will 1800-2005 add some operators to this description?
> > >
> > >             DANiel
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
> 


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