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

For my information - the system functions like $inferred_clock are
processed during compilation / elaboration and are replaced by the
actual expressions from the design. Can user replace it by his/her
function even in that case?

Thanks,
ed

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Steven
> Sharp
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 5:43 PM
> To: sharp@cadence.com; stuart@sutherland-hdl.com; sv-bc@eda.org; sv-
> ec@eda.org; sv-cc@eda.org; sv-ac@eda.org; shalom.bresticker@intel.com
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] RE: [sv-ac] New keywords in SV-AC proposals
> 
> 
> >From: "Bresticker, Shalom" <shalom.bresticker@intel.com>
> 
> >> If a user
> >> defined such a system function named $inferred_clock, then
> >> the syntax $inferred_clock used in an expression would refer
> >> to that system function, not to the special meaning in this
> >> proposal.  That seems like a problem.
> >
> >I don't think so. The number of user-defined system tasks and
functions
> >is orders of magnitude less than the number of user-defined
identifers.
> 
> I agree that it is unlikely to happen by accident, especially with the
> names chosen.  The bigger issue is whether we want to allow users to
> do it on purpose.
> 
> There is a difference from identifiers.  A keyword takes precedence
over
> a user-defined identifier.  A user cannot use an identifier such as
"for"
> and replace the keyword.  But a user-defined system task or function
takes
> precedence over built-in ones.  So a user could define a system
function
> named $inferred_clock and replace the built-in meaning.  It seems to
me
> that this might be undesirable.
> 
> 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, and is
believed to be clean.