RE: [sv-ec] typename and nets

I agree. I had someone with that confusion recently. It is part of the process of making the terminology in the LRM more precise. Because the document is so big and so old, it is a gradual process. We have made great progress, but it is not perfect. Specifically regarding "type", see Mantis 1845.

Regards,
Shalom


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Mlynek [mailto:danielm@aldec.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 11:37
> To: Bresticker, Shalom
> Cc: Daniel Mlynek; sv-ec@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-ec] typename and nets
> 
> This is how i understand it, but imho LRM should be more explicit about
> it as both data type and net type are often not well understand by
> users.
> 
> 
> DANiel
> 
> W dniu 9/29/2014 9:45 AM, Bresticker, Shalom pisze:
> > Hi,
> >
> > $typename returns the data type, not the net type, so "logic [3:0]"
> would be correct.
> >
> > Shalom
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> >> Daniel Mlynek
> >> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 10:05
> >> To: sv-ec@eda.org
> >> Subject: [sv-ec] typename and nets
> >>
> >> LRM do not says explicitly what typename should return for nets.
> >> ie for
> >>      wire [3:0] w;
> >> Should it return net type "wire [3:0]"
> >> or data type: "logic [3:0]"
> >> Maybe extra task is needed for net types ie smth like "$nettypename"
> >>
> >>
> >> DANiel

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.