FW: [sv-ec] randmization_call clearence

Proposal for 2279 is clause fixing annex G.4 has:
 
The syntax for the randomize function is defined as randomize_call in A.8.2.
The specific form applicable to std::randomize is summarised here as
follows:

randomize [ ( [ variable_identifier_list ] ) ] variable_identifier {,
variable_identifier } [ with constraint_block ];

There is missing attibute instance - this is just editorial change:

The syntax for the randomize function is defined as randomize_call in A.8.2.
The specific form applicable to std::randomize is summarised here as
follows:

randomize { attribute_instance }[ ( [ variable_identifier_list ] ) ]
variable_identifier {, variable_identifier } [ with constraint_block ];

DANiel

  _____  

From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com] 
Sent: 29 sierpnia 2008 09:40
To: Daniel Mlynek
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] randmization_call clearence


Yes, I agree with you now.
I guess we did not think of that, since the attribute_instance is not really
part of the function call itself, but a modifier of it.
You can ask SV-EC to ask the editor to add it.
 
Shalom


  _____  

From: Daniel Mlynek [mailto:daniel.mlynek@aldec.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 10:33 AM
To: Bresticker, Shalom
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] randmization_call clearence


This is a call - not a prototype in proposal:
The syntax for the randomize function is defined as randomize_call in A.8.2.
The specific form applicable to std::randomize is summarised here as
follows:

randomize [ ( [ variable_identifier_list ] ) ] variable_identifier {,
variable_identifier } [ with constraint_block ];

DANiel

  _____  

From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com] 
Sent: 29 sierpnia 2008 09:28
To: Daniel Mlynek
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] randmization_call clearence


G.4 shows the function prototype.
The attribute_instance is not part of the function prototype.
 
Regards,
Shalom


  _____  

From: Daniel Mlynek [mailto:daniel.mlynek@aldec.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:33 PM
To: Bresticker, Shalom
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] randmization_call clearence


thx - it exactly matches my question 
I only wonder why in proposal :"{ attribute_instance }" 

was missed in clause G.4 at the very end

DANiel


  _____  

From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com] 
Sent: 28 sierpnia 2008 12:19
To: Daniel Mlynek; sv-ec@server.eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] randmization_call clearence


This was addressed in Mantis 2279.
It should go into Draft 7.
 
Thanks,
Shalom


  _____  

From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Daniel Mlynek
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:15 PM
To: sv-ec@server.eda-stds.org
Subject: [sv-ec] randmization_call clearence


LRM in chapter 17 gives to definitions:

    scope_randomize ::= [ std:: ] randomize ( [ variable_identifier_list ] )
[ with constraint_block ]

    inline_constraint _declaration ::= class_variable_identifier . randomize
[ ( [ variable_identifier_list | null ] ) ]     with [ ( [ identifier_list ]
) ] constraint_block

Those definition are not then used in annex A bnf there in only
randomize_call:

    randomize { attribute_instance } [ ( [ variable_identifier_list | null ]
) ] [ with constraint_block ]

IMHO in all of above there is a bit of incosistency. ANNEX a covers both
definiition from chapter 17 bu definition differs in t:
- { attribute_instance }
- obligatory of  parantheses: ( [ variable_identifier_list ] )  vs [( [
variable_identifier_list ] ) ]
- null in arg list
- with clause  with [ ( [ identifier_list ] ) ] constraint_block
 
Some of the difference was made surely on purpose - but really all are ok?
1. should attribute be allowed in all 3 definitions?
2. should parantheses be not obligatory in all 3 definitions?
3. should null be allowed in all 3 definitions?
4. with [ ( [ identifier_list ] ) ] constraint_block be added into annex A?
with some footnote?
 
Mantis is down again so I cannot check if this was already addressed
 
 
DANiel

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

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.