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

Steven,

Yes, you're right.  The paragraph I mentioned is irrelevant.

Moreover, I believe that .name and .* can't be used together
in the same instantiation.

-- Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org]On Behalf Of
Steven Sharp
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 4:25 PM
To: sv-bc@eda.org; Brad.Pierce@synopsys.COM
Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Action item: Update item 548



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

That paragraph has a problem.  If you assume that it means that these can
be used in any combination in the same instantiation, then it says that
it is legal to mix positional and named connections.  This is wrong.  You
can use positional, or combinations of explicit or implicit named
connections.  However, you cannot mix positional with named.

The part of the sentence that says "into the same parent module" implies
that it is talking about different instantiations in the same module.
That means you can use positional in one instantiation and named in
another, or implicit named in one and implicit .* in another.  It does
not mean you can use positional and named in the same instantiation,
and therefore it does not mean you can use implicit named and implicit
.* in the same instantiation.

So I disagree that this paragraph says it is legal, unless this paragraph
is also saying that you can mix positional and named.  And if it is saying
that, then it needs to be fixed.

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com