Date: Wed Aug 03 2011 - 02:52:30 PDT
The weight of the syntax required to support the richness of the potential configuration needs was my initial concern and the reason to proposing the comment-based syntax.
I'm fully open to change the syntax to `pragma if the committee is confident it will fit.
Vitaly
From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Brad Pierce
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 10:22 PM
To: Rich, Dave
Cc: SystemVerilog CC DWG (sv-cc@eda.org); sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: [sv-cc] Re: [sv-bc] Mantis 3087 Uses of comment pragmas instead of attributes
Can the impoverished attribute syntax of Syntax 5-3 really carry the weight? Why not use/extend the `pragma directive of Syntax 22-8?
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Rich, Dave <Dave_Rich@mentor.com<mailto:Dave_Rich@mentor.com>> wrote:
Why does this proposal continue to promote the use comment pragmas instead of attributes? I thought the use of attributes is to be encouraged because you can't construct macros to deal with comments. Or are we giving up on attributes?
Dave Rich
Verification Technologist
Mentor Graphics Corporation
[cid:image001.png@01CC51DC.34D71E70]<http://www.twitter.com/dave_59>[cid:image002.png@01CC51DC.34D71E70]<http://go.mentor.com/drich>
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
