I agree that it might be classified as an enhancement. What Mac has asked is what is the justification for the restriction. I still have not heard a clear answer. Shalom > -----Original Message----- > From: Rich, Dave [mailto:Dave_Rich@mentor.com] > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 7:43 PM > To: Bresticker, Shalom; sv-bc@eda.org > Subject: RE: [sv-bc] 10.8 Named blocks and statement labels - > question > > No, Named blocks currently only have one name. Statement labels > are > another way to express a named block. If you want named blocks > to have > two names, that's another enhancement. > > Nesting block names is not the same as giving one block two > names. > > > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com] > > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 9:31 AM > > To: Rich, Dave; sv-bc@eda.org > > Subject: RE: [sv-bc] 10.8 Named blocks and statement labels - > question > > > > That's a circular answer, I think: they can have only one > name because > > they can have only one name. > > > > Shalom > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Rich, Dave [mailto:Dave_Rich@mentor.com] > > > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 7:27 PM > > > To: Michael (Mac) McNamara; Steven Sharp; Bresticker, > Shalom; > > > sv-bc@eda.org > > > Subject: RE: [sv-bc] 10.8 Named blocks and statement labels > - > > > question > > > > > > Because a statement label is just syntactic sugar for a > named > > > block, and > > > right now, named blocks only have one name. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Michael (Mac) McNamara > [mailto:mcnamara@cadence.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 8:46 AM > > > > To: Rich, Dave; Steven Sharp; > shalom.bresticker@intel.com; > > > sv-bc@eda.org > > > > Subject: 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.Received on Mon Feb 13 09:50:11 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 13 2006 - 09:51:20 PST