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

Brad and Gord,

The semi-colon issue for me is minor and I will change my vote to yes if
there isn't enough pull to change to some other form.

My preference of the solutions thought of so far:
  1. Gord's solution with a single import keyword and a comma separated
     list of package_import_item:
        module M import p1::*, p2::* ();

  2. Brad's parenthetical imports, but with this it might be a good idea
     to allow that style of import separated from the header as well
     (i.e. separate from headers, allow either style of import; but in
     headers, allow only the parenthetical style):
        module M import(p1::*, p2::*) ();

  3. The current proposal with semi-colons.

  4. Multiple import keywords and packages with whitespace separation.



Thanks,
-- Heath

####################################
|                                  |
| HMC Design Verification, Inc.    |
|                                  |
| Heath Chambers                   |
| President/Verification Designer  |
| 1203 San Juan Drive              |
| Roswell, NM 88201                |
|                                  |
| hmcdvi@msn.com                   |
| Phone: (575)627-2069             |
| Fax:   (575)627-2069             |
| http://hmcdv.iwarp.com           |
|                                  |
####################################


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Brad Pierce
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 10:20 AM
> To: sv-bc@server.eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] e-mail ballot: respond by Dec 3, 8am PST
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> 
> 

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