Subject: [sv-bc] Time literal question
From: Karen Pieper (Karen.Pieper@synopsys.com)
Date: Mon Feb 02 2004 - 08:41:58 PST
The reflector bounced this mail.
K
>>From owner-sv-bc Fri Jan 30 17:48:52 2004
>Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (relay1.mentorg.com [192.94.38.131])
> by server.eda.org (8.12.0.Beta7/8.12.0.Beta7) with ESMTP id i0V1mfPT021779
> for <sv-bc@eda.org>; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:48:52 -0800 (PST)
>Received: from svr-orw-exc-04.wv.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.104])
> by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp
> id 1AmkFV-0002xb-00 from jamiel@model.com
> for sv-bc@eda.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:48:41 -0800
>Received: by svr-orw-exc-04.wv.mentorg.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
> id <ZH62MK3X>; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:48:41 -0800
>Message-ID: <F7DECA8E801AD51195F100508BB89DA60AA3B029@svr-orw-exc-04.wv.mentorg.com>
>From: "LaFlamme, Jamie" <jamiel@model.com>
>To: "'sv-bc@eda.org'" <sv-bc@server.eda.org>
>Subject: Time literal question
>Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:48:40 -0800
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>The BNF in draft 3 of the 3.1a LRM defines delay_value as:
>
> delay_value ::=
> unsigned_number
> | real_number
> | identifier
>
>Shouldn't delay_value be defined as:
>
> delay_value ::=
> time_literal
> | identifier
>
>to allow delay values like "#1ns" and "#1step"?
>
>Thanks,
>-Jamie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Feb 02 2004 - 08:49:09 PST