Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Re: discrete time
From: Bernard Deadman (bdeadman@sdvinc.com)
Date: Wed Jan 15 2003 - 09:39:04 PST
At 08:02 PM 1/14/2003 -0800, Kevin Cameron wrote:
>Anyway, the original question was about using event sequence assertions in the
>absence of a specific clock - I still don't see why a clock is essential.
As Kevin so rightly points out, the original debate started by Mike
McNamara was about the use of assertion-like syntax to represent sequences
of events. That would be possible with a Sugar 2.0 (aka PSL) syntax, and
the requirement (assuming anyone wishes to be troubled by clear
requirements rather than the present diabolically ad hoc approach....) is,
so far as I'm aware, to represent the order of sequences and I don't think
there's any requirement to quantify the time unit(s) in which the events
occur.
All this talk about delta's is adding unnecessary confusion. Sugar 2.0
syntax and semantics are more than adequate for the task of representing
sequences, timed or un-timed. Come on Surrendra, isn't it time to
constructively embrace re-use within a language?
Regards
Bernard
====================================================================
SDV Inc. 9111 Jollyville Rd, Suite 102, Austin, TX 78759 USA
Phone: (512) 231-9806 xt 101 FAX: (512) 231-9807 Mobile: (512)
431-5126
Email: bdeadman@sdvinc.com Website: www.sdvinc.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 09:50:17 PST