Re: [sv-bc] Action item: Update item 548

The LRM explicitly says that it's legal.  See the last paragraph in 19.11.4.

-- Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org]On Behalf Of Rich,
Dave
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 4:02 PM
To: Steven Sharp; sv-bc@eda.org; Vreugdenhil, Gordon
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Action item: Update item 548 


This is allowed. In fact, there used to be an explicit rule that said
.name and .* could not be used in the same instance, but it was removed.
Therefore, since it is syntactically legal, and there is no semantic
restriction making it illegal, it is legal.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Steven
> Sharp
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 3:34 PM
> To: sv-bc@eda.org; Vreugdenhil, Gordon
> Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Action item: Update item 548
> 
> Note that this might be a reason to allow mixing .name implicit port
> connections with .* implicit port connections (which I don't think is
> currently allowed).
> 
> Steven Sharp
> sharp@cadence.com