Re: [sv-bc] Defparam -- mixed message from IEEE standards

Those are not the words I recall that Cliff uses to describe DEFPARAM.  Of course the quality of DEFPARAM is noted in the past tense which suggest the idea may no longer be a good one.  :)


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@server.verilog.org
To: Clifford E. Cummings; sv-bc@server.verilog.org
Sent: Wed Jun 14 02:35:52 2006
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Defparam -- mixed message from IEEE standards

I quote Cliff: "defparam was a good idea".

Almost any useful construct can be misused.

I searched through 1364-2005 and 1800-2005. The word "useful" is used 19
times in 1364-2005 and 28 times in 1800-2005.

Does anyone want to propose disallowing upwards defparams ?

Shalom