Re: [sv-bc] Section 28.9 typo

Yes, the name is only required when the gates/switches are arrayed.

-- Brad

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Bresticker, Shalom
<shalom.bresticker@intel.com> wrote:
> Greg,
>
> I believe it *is* legal. Look at 28.3.
>
> Shalom
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On
>> Behalf Of Greg Jaxon
>> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 6:16 AM
>> To: SV_BC List
>> Subject: [sv-bc] Section 28.9 typo
>>
>> Section 28.9 covering cmos switches uses an example wherein the gates
>> are not given instance names - illegal syntax.
>> I think this happens because the equivalence it is trying to
>> illustrate
>> is not available as a mere rewrite of the netlist.
>> Can we do something to indicate that this example is not legal code?
>>
>> Greg
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>
>
> --
> 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.