Re: [sv-bc] DataTypes: The wone net type

Sure, but that's not exactly what I meant. My main point was that
why not extend 'default_nettype to user defined types (of nets) ?
If this can be done, an attribute route would still be acceptable.

That said, I dont have a problem with the idea of wone and I would
not get into the how many/few customers thing. If they want it, who
am I to say no.

Thanks,
- Krishna.

Steven Sharp wrote:
>>At the risk of getting into an argument for the sake of it, that brings
>>up another question. When SV data types are extended to nets why not
>>allow `default_nettype to be legal with any user defined net data type ??
>
>
> Krishna, the "net types" in `default_nettype are not the data types, but
> are the object "kinds". They are independent or orthogonal to the
> data types. They are not user defined, and the work being done in this
> group doesn't change that.
>
>
>>Once that happens, a user can create custom data types with the wone like
>>attribute and use it along with `default_nettype. While I have nothing
>>against wone like nets, I am only wondering why make the language any bigger
>
>
> Since users cannot create new net types (i.e. "kinds" in the nomenclature
> being used in this group), there is no facility for doing this themselves.
>
>
>>1) if an attribute can capture the essence of a new construct
>>2) (and) it's something a select few would be interested in ??
>
>
> How few you think would be interested in it may depend on what customers
> you have been talking to.
>
> Steven Sharp
> sharp@cadence.com
>
>
>
Received on Fri Oct 29 00:40:35 2004