RE: the syntax of PSL prev function

Steve,
I think it is a matter of users convenience. If the non-uniform syntax
confuses users and makes it harder for them to remember the syntax we
should consider changing it.
We should ask more users.

Sitvanit

Sitvanit Ruah
Formal Verification and Testing Technologies Group
IBM Haifa Research Laboratory
Tel: 972-3-640-1697 email: sitvanit@il.ibm.com

                                                                                                                                                    
                      "Bailey, Stephen"
                      <SBailey@model.co To: Sitvanit Ruah/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, <erichm@cadence.com>
                      m> cc: <ieee-1850-extensions@eda.org>
                                               Subject: RE: the syntax of PSL prev function
                      22/12/2004 17:31
                                                                                                                                                    

Hi Sitvanit,

Without any other considerations, I don't see how the minor benefit
justifies invalidating all existing PSL code using prev.

-Steve Bailey

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ieee-1850-extensions@eda.org
> [mailto:owner-ieee-1850-extensions@eda.org] On Behalf Of Sitvanit Ruah
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 1:37 AM
> To: erichm@cadence.com
> Cc: ieee-1850-extensions@eda.org
> Subject: Fw: the syntax of PSL prev function
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> One of our customers suggested the following new syntax for
> the prev built-in function
> prev[Number](Any_Type)
> that will replace the current syntax
> prev(Any_Type [ , Number]).
>
> I think that it makes sense because numbers and ranges are
> usually enclosed in square brackets and the number parameter
> of prev is the only exception.
> Moreover, the prev function and the next operator are quite
> the same in the eyes of the user. The new syntax suggests
> similar syntax for both.
>
>
> Sitvanit
>
>
Received on Wed Dec 22 08:16:09 2004