RE: [sv-bc] RE: [sv-ac] New keywords in SV-AC proposals

All,

I will try to be proactive here. Does anybody object to changing the
next and s_next LTL operators to LTL_next and s_LTL_next respectively?

I know it is not visually attractive, but I am not sure that we will be
able to converge on something else in time. One can always alias it to
something else.

Doron

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org]
On
>>Behalf Of Gordon Vreugdenhil
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:15 AM
>>To: Brad Pierce
>>Cc: sv-bc@server.eda.org; sv-ec@server.eda.org; sv-cc@server.eda.org;
sv-
>>ac@server.eda.org
>>Subject: Re: [sv-bc] RE: [sv-ac] New keywords in SV-AC proposals
>>
>>
>>But adding "next" also invalidates the LRM itself (including 2005) in
>>the builtin "Iterator" class which has:
>>
>>class List_Iterator#(parameter type T);
>>    extern function void next();
>>    extern function void prev();
>>    extern function int neq( List_Iterator#(T) iter );
>>    extern function int eq( List_Iterator#(T) iter );
>>    extern function T data();
>>endclass
>>
>>
>>Gord.
>>
>>
>>Brad Pierce wrote:
>>> Steven,
>>>
>>> Thanks for running those tests.  Important data.  Just a short note
>>> about your last point --
>>>
>>> The existing built-in enum method 'next()' needn't be a backward
>>> compatibility problem for a new keyword 'enum'.  See friendly
amendment
>>> in bullet 11 here
>>> <http://www.eda-stds.org/sv/sv-champions/hm/att-
>>0340/pierce_email_vote_Feb2308.txt>.
>>>
>>> See also
>>>
>>>    http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-ac/hm/5668.html
>>>
>>> -- Brad
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Steven Sharp
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 1:52 PM
>>> To: stuart@sutherland-hdl.com; sv-bc@eda.org; sv-ec@eda.org;
>>> sv-cc@eda.org; sv-ac@eda.org
>>> Subject: Re: [sv-bc] RE: [sv-ac] New keywords in SV-AC proposals
>>>
>>>
>>>  >From: "Stuart Sutherland" <stuart@sutherland-hdl.com>
>>>
>>>  >I am very concerned about some of the proposed new keywords,
>>specifically:
>>>  >
>>>  >  checker, free, global, implies, let, next, restrict, strong,
until,
>>>  > weak
>>>  >
>>>  >These are common English words that are likely to be in use as
>>>  >identifiers in existing code.
>>>
>>> I have tried compiling a suite of 88 customer designs with these
>>> keywords reserved in our parser.  18 (or 20%) fail to compile.  This
>>> figure may be somewhat low, since some of these testcases appear to
have
>>> been run through obfuscators before being given to us.
>>>
>>> The offending keywords were:
>>>
>>> next:           7 testcases
>>> free:           7 testcases
>>> global:         4 testcases
>>> checker:        1 testcase
>>> weak:           1 testcase
>>>
>>> Note that the numbers do not add up to 18 testcases, because some
>>> testcases failed with conflicts on more than one keyword.
>>>
>>> Also note that 'next' is particularly problematic, since it is
already
>>> used as an identifier in a built-in method in SV.  One of these
customer
>>> tests was SV and ran into this issue.
>>>
>>> Steven Sharp
>>> sharp@cadence.com
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>,
and
>>is
>>> believed to be clean.
>>
>>--
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.