Re: idt assert

Table 4-21 in LRM 2.2 says "assert is an integer-valued expression."
This language was dropped in some draft of LRM 2.3 (it's not in draft 3).

Regarding cross(), enable was not in LRM 2.2; draft 3 says
"Analog filter functions cannot be used for dir or enable argument
and they should evaluate to integers."  I'm not sure what
"evaluate to" is supposed to mean, or if it should say
"will be coerced to".

-Geoffrey



Paul Floyd wrote:
> Hi
> 
> [I sent this yesterday, but didn't receive it]
> 
> I've just been wondering if the assert in idt should really be as
> described in the LRM. Currently it says that
> 
> "When specified with both initial conditions and assert, idt()
> returns the initial conditions during DC and IC analyses, and whenever
> assert is nonzero. Once assert
> becomes zero, idt() returns the integral of the argument starting from
> the last instant where assert was
> nonzero."
> 
> But assert is a real-valued analog_expression. This means that if assert
> is 0.0, then idt performs the time integral, and if assert is any other
> value (like 1e-10), then the initial condition is used.
> 
> I wonder if assert should use the value of an integer, which would mean
> that if the assert is in the interval (-1.0, 1.0) then the assert will
> be false, otherwise it will be true.
> 
> Looking elsewhere in the LRM, this question also applies to cross/above
> (enable parameter),
> 
> Regards
> Paul Floyd

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.