RE: [sv-bc] 10.8 Named blocks and statement labels - question

Just curious: what is so bad about allowing multiple names for the same
block of code?  I do not know of other languages with such a
restriction. 


Michael McNamara
mcnamara@cadence.com
408-914-6808 work
408-348-7025 cell


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Rich, Dave
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 4:20 PM
To: Steven Sharp; shalom.bresticker@intel.com; sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] 10.8 Named blocks and statement labels - question

Steve,

The reason the rule "It shall be illegal to have both a label before a
begin or fork and a block name after the begin or fork." exists is
because there is only one block being created; otherwise, it wouldn't
have been a problem.

I've got someone writing a proposal to put normative text that supports
the example.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Sharp [mailto:sharp@cadence.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 4:53 PM
> To: shalom.bresticker@intel.com; sv-bc@eda.org; Rich, Dave
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] 10.8 Named blocks and statement labels - question
> 
> 
> >From: "Rich, Dave" <Dave_Rich@mentor.com>
> 
> >Well, section 17.2 does say so explicitly and there is an example in
> >10.8 of both a begin/end and fork/join with a matching end label.
> 
> Actually, 17.2 says that it creates a named block around the statement
> to which it applies.  This means that the label would not name the
> begin/end that it was attached to, but would create a new named block
> around the statement (the begin/end) that it was attached to.