RE: [sv-bc] e-mail ballot: respond by Dec 3, 8am PST

Leaving off the semicolon is irregular, too.

-- Brad 

-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Vreugdenhil [mailto:gordonv@model.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:29 AM
To: Brad Pierce
Cc: sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-bc] e-mail ballot: respond by Dec 3, 8am PST

I know that is what you originally proposed Brad but I really do not
like the irregular form of the parenthesized import list.  That is
different than any other use of imports and such irregularity is worse
to me than the other alternatives.

Gord.


Brad Pierce wrote:
> If no pound (#) sign
> 
>    module M import p1::*, p2::* ();
> 
> then it would be clearer to write
> 
>    module M import(p1::*, p2::*) ();
> 
> and within the import(), to allow p1 to be shorthand for p1::*.
> 
>    module M import(p1, p2) ();
> 
> -- Brad
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of 
> Gordon Vreugdenhil
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:13 AM
> To: Heath Chambers
> Cc: 'Maidment, Matthew R'; sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-bc] e-mail ballot: respond by Dec 3, 8am PST
> 
> 
> 
> Heath Chambers wrote:
>>  > >SVDB  329 ___Yes   _X_No    
>>  > >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=329
>>
>> Same as Gord's reason AND
>> I don't like the semicolons in the middle of a 
>> module/interface/program declaration.
>> My second issue is a weak objection as I feel the feature needs to be

>> added, so I will change my vote to yes if the BNF fixed and there 
>> isn't enough consensus to change to either comma or no separator 
>> (other than requiring a parameter and/or port list after the
imports).
> 
> 
> Heath, the issue of the ";" separator in the middle came up here in 
> some local discussions too.
> 
> Since the package_import_declaration allows a comma separated list of 
> package items:
>       package_import_item { , package_import_item } if we want to go 
> to a single import form we could restructure the grammar a bit:
> 
>       import_and_items ::=
>          import package_import_item { , package_import_item }
> 
>       package_import_declaration ::= import_and_items ;
> 
>       header_import_declaration ::= import_and_items
> 
> We could then allow just a single "header_import_declaration" rather 
> than a list and restructure the example to just use the single import.
> I would be Ok with that change.  I wouldn't like to end up with 
> multiple "import" keywords in a comma separated list.
> 
> So I am Ok with:
>       module M import p1::*, p2::* (); but don't really like:
>       module M import p1::* import p2::* ();
> 
> 
> If there is a stronger consensus on the above suggestion, I'd be fine 
> with that.
> 
> Gord.
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon Vreugdenhil                                503-685-0808
> Model Technology (Mentor Graphics)                gordonv@model.com
> 
> 

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Vreugdenhil                                503-685-0808
Model Technology (Mentor Graphics)                gordonv@model.com


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