>From: "Warmke, Doug" <doug_warmke@mentor.com> > >I like this idea, too. > >Minor suggestion to consider: >How about "anonblk" rather than "unmblk"? >(Short for anonymous) Standardizing on something is more important than what is chosen. I prefer "unmblk" for a variety of reasons: 1. I believe that I publicly proposed "unmblk" quite a while back and suggested that implementors use it, to get portability. 2. We actually did use it :-) 3. The LRM calls these "unnamed blocks", not "anonymous blocks". 4. It is shorter. It is also the same length as "genblk", so it will line up more nicely in displays. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Nov 1 08:53:55 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 01 2007 - 08:54:10 PDT