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

But the proposal has been to remove all defparams, not just upwards
ones.

 

Shalom

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org
[mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org] On Behalf Of Rich, Dave
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:39 AM
To: sv-bc@server.verilog.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Defparam -- mixed message from IEEE standards

 

The goto statement in software programming languages was a good idea
gone bad. 

 

The Star Wars anthology was a good idea gone bad too. :-)

 

Sometimes, a feature that seemed to be useful winds up more detrimental
in the end.  Having upwards defparams really complicates the elaboration
process and serves no useful purpose that anyone has been able to
explain(elaborate).

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org
[mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:12 AM
To: Brophy, Dennis; cliffc@sunburst-design.com; sv-bc@server.verilog.org
Subject: 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