Why no RE match of A AND B?

[Paddy]

Jeff Epler wrote:
> Do you have some use cases?
> 
> Am I correct in thinking that 
>     A&B
> is equivalent in meaning to
>     (AB)|(BA)
> except for the lack of grouping characters and repetition of the
> subpatterns?
> 
> Jeff
> 

Hmmm, use cases.

I'm doing some thought experiments around the problem of Property matching in Electronics.
You create properties describing your design, i.e. "if R=0 then R=1 in the next cycle 
prove that S=1 within the next 3 cycles" for your design.

You can mathematically prove some assertions on designs but for complex assertions or 
large designs, formal proof is too resource hungry so what you can do is simulate your 
design, producing the state of signals R and S over many cycles, then check if the 
property holds for this simulation, and how many times the property holds in this 
simulation (COVERAGE RESULTS).

Their is likely to be many properties to check on the design

In my thought experiments I thought that properties could be translated to REs in some 
way, and simulation results into strings.
When thinking of the need to match several properties, (OK, it could be done serially), I 
came up with my original question!

Pad.