Date: Wed Aug 03 2011 - 08:54:30 PDT
Syntax 22-8 comes a lot closer to what's in the proposal. Using Syntax 22-8, the complex values supported by the proposal could be represented as strings. So that would work out OK.
From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Brad Pierce
Sent: Tuesday, 2 Aug 2011 3:22 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@01CC51D4.1A2BDAA0]<http://www.twitter.com/dave_59>[cid:image002.png@01CC51D4.1A2BDAA0]<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.
