Re: [sv-bc] RE: E-mail Ballot Due Dec 17 8AM PST

Shalom, I'll take a try on this.

Bresticker, Shalom wrote:
> Don,
>  
> I did not understand the 3rd bullet on the 1st page:
>  
> 
> -- If a reference to an identifier in the target instance context is 
> used in an override, it shall be the only term in the expression.
> 
> What is this talking about?
>  
> And why is the next bullet (-- A hierarchical identifier in a parameter 
> override shall be resolved starting in the context of the configured 
> instance.  If a hierarchical identifier is used, it must be the only 
> term in the expression, i.e., a.b.c + 7 is invalid.)
> not covered by it?


Yes they are similar.  The problem here is that what we want to
restrict is that the only permissible binding is to all of an
existing declared parameter.  That makes late overrides simple
and avoids some of the concerns that Mark had.

Since is isn't really a "primary", I had listed both identifier
and hierarchical ident separately in my original feedback to Don.
That carried over here.  I think just "identifier" would be Ok
but didn't want others to assume that was just a non-hierarchical
identifier.  Suggestions here to be BNF precise would be welcome.


Gord.



> However, other than that and some minor editorial quibbles on the 1st 
> page, I don't have a problem with it.
>  
> I think it is better placed as 32.4.3 rather than 32.9.
>  
> Regards,
> Shalom
> 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* Don Mills [mailto:mills@lcdm-eng.com]
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, December 12, 2007 5:12 PM
>     *To:* Bresticker, Shalom
>     *Cc:* Maidment, Matthew R; Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com; Clifford E.
>     Cummings; Mark Hartoog; Francoise Martinolle; Karen Pieper; Rich,
>     Dave; Steven Sharp; Gordon Vreugdenhil; stuart@sutherland-hdl.com;
>     Gran, Alex; Heath Chambers; Alsop, Thomas R; Warmke, Doug;
>     michael.burns@freescale.com; sv-bc
>     *Subject:* Re: E-mail Ballot Due Dec 17 8AM PST
> 
>     Likewise for proposal 2037
>     BTW- I worked with my technical writer last night to clean up
>     grammar and I removed the section on positional notation.  I think I
>     now have something we can address in the email vote.
> 
>     Bresticker, Shalom wrote:
>>
>>     Since eda.org is down, here are the proposals for 1602, 2097, 2106.
>>
> 
>     -- 
>     ==========================================================
>     Don Mills
>     mills@lcdm-eng.com
>     www.lcdm-eng.com
>     ==========================================================
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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.