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

The full quote was, "Like I have said before, defparam was a good idea
gone bad."

 

The point is, the fact that some people misuse it does not make a useful
construct non-useful.

 

Lint rules exist to check that people are not doing bad things.

 

Also remember that verification code is much freer than design code.

 

Shalom

 

________________________________

From: Brophy, Dennis [mailto:dennisb@model.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:56 PM
To: Bresticker, Shalom; cliffc@sunburst-design.com;
sv-bc@server.verilog.org
Subject: 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