RE: [sv-bc] Mantis 1610: Scoping of unnamed sequential blocks

I'm also aware of at least two well-known implementors who currently use
the "unname$$" prefix ;)

Not that I like this name much though.

--Yulik.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Steven Sharp
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 5:54 PM
To: gordon_vreugdenhil@mentor.com; Bresticker, Shalom;
sharp@cadence.com; doug_warmke@mentor.com
Cc: sv-bc@server.eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Mantis 1610: Scoping of unnamed sequential blocks


>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.