RE: sc_event_or_list const &

I agree with Alan and Bishnupriya.

Philipp - any objections?

Thanks,

John A

From:
Bishnupriya Bhattacharya <bpriya@cadence.com>
To:
"john.aynsley@doulos.com" <john.aynsley@doulos.com>,
"systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org" <systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org>
Date:
11/01/2011 18:31
Subject:
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, and is 
believed to be clean. 
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.