Re: [sv-bc] Function call without ()

Hi Brad,
I don't have access to the draft 7a. So can you please describe what 
additional things are mentioned there regarding this.

Regards
Surya



-------- Original Message  --------
Subject: Re:[sv-bc] Function call without ()
From: Brad Pierce <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com>
To: sv-ec@eda.org
Cc: sv-bc@eda.org
Date: Sunday, October 19, 2008 9:38:58 PM
> Adding in the SV-EC regarding http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-bc/hm/9007.html
> .  Some relevant sections in draft 7a are 13.5.5 ("Optional argument
> list"), 13.7 ("Task and function names"), and 23.8 ("Upwards name
> referencing").
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> But if a class method even called as forward referenced inside the class
>
> without argument, is it an error or not. Normally a function can be 
> forward referenced. LRM is silent on that. Please consider the case and 
> let me know whether it is correct or not:
>
> module top;
> class C;
> task t;
> int x;
> x = f; // Here 'f' is a class method declared later.
> endtask
> static function int f;
> return 1;
> endfunction
> endclass
> endmodule
>
> Regards
> Surya
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>   
>> You can read some of the history in
>>
>>
>>     
> http://www.eda.org/sv-ec/Minutes/SV-EC_BallotRes_Meeting_April_15_2005_M
> inutes.txt
>   
>> Look for "Mantis 93".
>>
>> -- Brad
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>> As per 1800 2005 LRM:
>>
>> *12.4.5 Optional argument list
>> When a void function or class function method specifies no arguments, 
>> the empty parenthesis, (), following the subroutine name shall be 
>> optional. This is also true for tasks, void functions, and class 
>> methods that require arguments, when all arguments have defaults 
>> specified. It shall be illegal to omit the parenthesis in a directly 
>> recursive nonvoid function method call that is not hierarchically 
>> qualified.*
>>
>> Why only class methods are relaxed? If general function also used 
>> without () what is the issue there?
>>
>> -- 
>> Regards
>> Surya
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>   




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