Shalom makes a fair criticism. Here's another phrasing: "Unpacked structures and arrays (either referenced as data objects or constructed by assignment patterns) can be combined into aggregate expressions." Bresticker, Shalom wrote: > A data object is not defined that in the LRM. 6.2 says, > > "A data object is a named entity that has a data value associated with > it, such as a parameter, a variable, or a net." > > And the LRM consistently uses 'data object' with that meaning. You can't > change its meaning in a single place. > > Shalom > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org >> [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Rich, Dave >> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:46 AM >> To: Bresticker, Shalom; Greg Jaxon >> Cc: sv-bc >> Subject: 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. >> >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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.Received on Wed Mar 5 13:56:15 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 05 2008 - 13:56:31 PST