One quick reply to Robin and Giorgio to end my input on this thread ...
[Robin writes]
> However, I also think that 6.8.6.6.4 is ambiguous with respect to
> satements within guarded UDOs, and therefore requires a ruling by Eric as to
> the precise intent.
Good enough -- the only thing I was trying to show with these various
examples is that a fair amount of precision in specification is going
to be required, if the goal is to have truly normative UDO SAOL code
i.e. SAOL code that produces the same audio for different decoders whose
authors believe they are faithfully implementing the standard.
Personally, I'm going to tail off the thread here (giant cheering from
the list :-), and wait until Eric's proposal is ready -- it's a lot
easier to craft small code examples showing problems (or even better,
not to be able to craft such examples!) once there's a concrete set of
new semantics to analyze ...
[Giogio writes]
> Yes, the line b = a is compiled as sub-block of the if statement, it is
> ok (for saint) because width is 1 at left and right of the equal sign,
> and it is executed the first time foo calls bar.
OK, if you're saying:
ivar a[1], b;
b = a;
is normative (i.e. assigning a width-one array to a scalar), that's fine
with me -- sfront works that way today, but I was unsure if this was actually
legal.
--jl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Lazzaro -- Research Specialist -- CS Division -- EECS -- UC Berkeley
lazzaro [at] cs [dot] berkeley [dot] edu www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 12:03:56 EST