RE: [sv-ec] RE: 0001721: Ballot comment #188 order used for find and find_index

New proposal uploaded with friendly amendments, plus statement about
result type.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arturo Salz [mailto:Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 11:29 AM
> To: Rich, Dave; sv-ec@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ec] RE: 0001721: Ballot comment #188 order used for
find
> and find_index
> 
> Write something like this:
>   arr.sum < 1000 ==> T'(a[0]+...) < 1000
>   where T == $type(arr[i])
> 
> 
>         Arturo
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich, Dave [mailto:Dave_Rich@mentor.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 10:31 AM
> To: Bresticker, Shalom; Arturo Salz; Jonathan Bromley; sv-ec@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ec] RE: 0001721: Ballot comment #188 order used for
find
> and find_index
> 
> I've uploaded a proposal that addresses the ordering for
> find_first/last, leaving the traversal order unspecified.
> 
> The ordering is defined by the array type. left, to right index for
> unpacked arrays, first to last for associative arrays.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
> > Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 7:25 PM
> > To: Arturo Salz; Jonathan Bromley; sv-ec@server.eda.org
> > Subject: RE: [sv-ec] RE: 0001721: Ballot comment #188 order used for
> find
> > and find_index
> >
> > How are indices ordered for an associative array when the index type
> is a
> > user-defined type? The LRM says, "the relative ordering of any two
> entries
> > in such an associative array can vary, even between successive runs
of
> the
> > same tool. However, the relative ordering shall remain the same
within
> the
> > same simulation run while no indices have been added or deleted."
That
> is,
> > there is an order, but "smallest" and "largest" are not appropriate
> terms,
> > either.
> >
> > As for dynamic arrays, surely a dynamic array is considered as being
> [0:N-1].
> > For example, one can take a slice from it.
> >
> > > It is precisely because of associative arrays that the
> > > smallest/largest index order is relevant. Left and right
> > > indices are not well defined for an associative array, but
> > > its indices do have a well defined ordering.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Shalom
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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.
> >


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