RE: [sv-bc] Is #4.2step legal?

That has its own set of problems.
The reason we designed it as a number was twofold:
 1) To allow specifying it as a parameter 
 2) To avoid introducing a new keyword

After doing that we decided that it was not worthwhile restricting it to
be 1step because, as Shalom wrote, people will always find something
useful to do with such a feature. Personally, I agree with Jonathan that
non-unit step delays may not be very useful and can be problematic, but
that's not a reason to disallow them. As for fractional steps, a warning
would be appropriate or perhaps even an error.

	Arturo

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Michael (Mac) McNamara
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 8:51 AM
To: Bresticker, Shalom; Jonathan Bromley; sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Is #4.2step legal?

Perhaps it should be renamed #onestep or #delta or #nexttimestep or
somesuch.  Remove the roman numeral and then folks will not get the
notion they can use any number. 


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
Bresticker, Shalom
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 6:17 AM
To: Jonathan Bromley; sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Is #4.2step legal?

I can certainly imagine someone trying to use it to ensure order of
execution, i.e. #1step being executed before #2step.

Shalom

> Can someone *please* explain what on earth they think
> #Nstep is for, given N>1 ?  I am completely at a loss
> to imagine any situation in which it is either robust
> or useful.