Hi Ed, as I said, it is hard to converge. I don't like adding LTL prefix unless we have to, it is a hassle. Further, for people who don't know LTL it is not meaningful and people who do, don't need the prefix. How about "later" ? I can live with nexttime, next_cycle, coming, ensuing, following, succeeding, after, coming up, consequent, consequential, later, posterior, postliminary, subsequent, subsequential Even words in Latin Doron >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Eduard Cerny [mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:42 PM >>To: Bustan, Doron; Gordon Vreugdenhil; Brad Pierce >>Cc: 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 >> >>Hi Doron, >> >>we already have the system functions $future_gclk, would s_future and >>future be a possible replacement for next? If on the other hand you add >>LTL to next, perhaps it should be added to all the property operators >>other than all 4 resets, if-else, iff, implies, and, or, not. >> >>Regards, >>ed >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of >>> Bustan, Doron >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:16 AM >>> To: Gordon Vreugdenhil; Brad Pierce >>> Cc: 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 >>> >>> 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. >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 12 06:01:14 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 12 2008 - 06:01:58 PDT