RE: [sv-bc] mantis 2549 - ommiting parenthesis in f-call

Thank you Steven.

I assume that the answer for my last question:  
"4. Should the same rules be valid for randomize_call where BNF defined that
for std::randomize () are obligatory, and for randomize method can be
ommited - which rules take precedence?" 
is that the same rules as for usual function/method calls should be in power
when talking about randomize_call.

DANiel

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Sharp [mailto:sharp@cadence.com] 
Sent: 18 czerwca 2009 20:20
To: sv-bc@eda.org; daniel.mlynek@aldec.com
Subject: Re: [sv-bc] mantis 2549 - ommiting parenthesis in f-call


>From: "Daniel Mlynek" <daniel.mlynek@aldec.com>

>1. As I understand in call to task,  "void function", "void method
function"
>parenthesis can be ommited ( am I right?)

This is correct.  The reason is that there is no possible ambiguity.  An
identifier used as a statement must be a call to a task (or void function).


>2. What if "nonvoid function" or "non-void function method" is called 
>like a task - return value is discarded

Technically, the LRM defines it by what you are calling, not by how it is
called.  However, the same reasoning applies here as in the void function
case, so I don't see a reason it could not be allowed.


>3. For "nonvoid-function  method" behaviour is desribed but what about 
>"nonvoid function" the behaviour should be the same as for method or 
>parenthesis cannot be ommited at all?

For a non-void non-method function, the parentheses cannot be omitted.


Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com


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