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

And, last time I checked, ANSI C, FORTRAN, et cetera, still has the goto
statement, despite Edsger's best efforts, now 38 years in progress [Ref:
ACM, Vol. 11, No. 3, March 1968, pp. 147-148.]
 

Michael McNamara

mcnamara@cadence.com

408-914-6808 work

408-348-7025 cell

 

 


________________________________

	From: owner-sv-bc@eda-stds.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda-stds.org]
On Behalf Of Rich, Dave
	Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:39 AM
	To: sv-bc@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