RE: reset_signal_is

I'm all for a more generality. The superset is good.

Best regards,

Tor Jeremiassen

---
Tor Jeremiassen, Ph.D.
Simulation and Modeling CTO
SDO Foundational Tools
Texas Instruments                    Ph:    281 274 3483
P.O. Box 1443, MS 730                Fax:   281 274 2703
Houston, TX 77251-1443               Email: tor@ti.com<mailto:tor@ti.com>
________________________________
From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 4:22 PM
To: systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Subject: reset_signal_is
All,
Bishnupriya raised the following point a while back:
The LRM specifies 2 signatures for reset_signal_is
  void reset_signal_is( const sc_in<bool>& , bool );
  void reset_signal_is( const sc_signal<bool>& , bool );
  (The process control extensions spec uses the above signatures)
The 4feb06 kit implements the following 2 signatures
   void reset_signal_is( const sc_in<bool>& port, bool level );
   void reset_signal_is( const sc_signal_in_if<bool>& iface, bool level ); <---------- this is a superset of what the LRM says
Should the LRM be modified (in the future) to allow the superset that the 4feb06 kit allows?
Thanks,
John A
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.