I agree with Shalom that a single token cannot be cobbled together from text that is partially in a macro expansion and partially outside of the same macro expansion. As Shalom stated the LRM is fairly clear on this in section 21.5.1.
You don't agree that joining the macro text with what comes after it would turn the macro text into half a token? Shalom-----Original Message----- From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Brad Pierce Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 6:19 PM To: sv-bc@server.eda.org Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Macro mantis proposals 1397 & 1478 No, I don't agree. My macro text ended in an escaped identifier. The proposal would strip off its trailing whitespace. In any case, the example is a natural one for an implementer to think of, so the LRM really ought to be clear on the point, if only by giving an example. -- Brad -----Original Message----- From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 2:31 AM To: Brad Pierce; sv-bc@eda.org Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Macro mantis proposals 1397 & 1478 Brad, 1. It is true that 1339 is formally being revoted. However, there was informal oral agreement on the last revision of the proposal at the most recent meeting. 2. Your example probably should not work because of the rule that a macro text may not begin or end in the middle of a token. The precise LRM text in 21.5 is "The text specified for macro text shall not be split across the following lexical tokens: - Comments - Numbers - String literals - Identifiers - Keywords - Operators" Do you agree? Thanks, Shalom-----Original Message----- From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Brad Pierce Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:30 AM To: sv-bc@server.eda.org Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Macro mantis proposals 1397 & 1478Mantis 1339 has been approved which adds the last sentence below:Mantis 1339 is still being considered by the current e-mail vote. Also, I added the following bugnote to it -------------------------- It would be nice to see an example of what this proposal means for macro texts that end with escaped identifiers. For example, I think the following would be legal Verilog under this proposal `define MAC(ignored) \!@# wire `MAC(ignored)%^&* = 1'b1; wire w = \!@#%^&* ; ------------------------- -- Brad -- 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. -- 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 archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 06 2007 - 10:07:37 PST