RE: sc_event_or_list const &

I think we should change to the old fashioned style

  void next_trigger(const sc_time&, const sc_event_or_list&);

-Bishnupriya

From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 7:13 PM
To: systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Subject: sc_event_or_list const &

All,

Alan writes:
p60
There are a whole lot of functions declared in a different style e.g.

   void next_trigger(const sc_time&, sc_event_or_list const &);

I think this is inconsistent. Either the whole standard should be changed to that style e.g.

   void next_trigger(sc_time const &, sc_event_or_list const &);

or (easier!)

these functions should be written in the old-fashioned
   void next_trigger(const sc_time&, const sc_event_or_list &);

Otherwise it will just confuse people.
Same on p72ff section 6.2.17
Same in section 6.2.18
Same in section 6.9.2, 6.9.4
Same in section 6.15.2

[JA] I agree. I was lazy and simply copied the function declarations from Philipp's prototype, but as things stand the LRM is no longer self-consistent.

Opinions?

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.