RE: [sv-bc] SVDB Proposals - 2115, 2124 & 2131

The mistake was in defining unique. unique and priority were meant to
imitate the two synthesis directives full_case and parallel_case.
priority is like full_case, but unique is like the combination of
full_case and parallel_case, leaving out the case of parallel_case
without full_case. And that's without mentioning that priority is a very
misleading name, conveying a very different connotation from full_case.

Oops! I guess I did mention it...

Shalom 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Steven Sharp
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 6:16 PM
> To: cliffc@sunburst-design.com; gordonv@model.com
> Cc: sv-bc@server.eda.org; Maidment, Matthew R
> Subject: Re: [sv-bc] SVDB Proposals - 2115, 2124 & 2131
> 
> 
> >From: Gordon Vreugdenhil <gordonv@model.com>
> 
> >I am uncomfortable with 2131.  It is setting a precedent 
> that a keyword 
> >distinction is needed (and appropriate) to get a different level of 
> >warning reporting.
> 
> My take on it was that it was another distinct set of 
> conditions to be checked, just as unique and priority check 
> different conditions.  The only weakness I see in the analogy 
> is that unique0 is almost the same as unique, and that the 
> same checking can already be gotten by using unique and 
> adding an empty else/default clause.
> 
> If this idiom is common enough, the convenience might justify 
> the extra keyword.
> 
> >I know that we have previously stayed away from 
> standardizing attribute 
> >forms but it seems to me that we should at least be considering this 
> >more thoroughly before adopting the keyword approach.  Since there 
> >seems to be some tendency to add required warnings, if we want to 
> >standardize control over the conditions and forms of such 
> warnings, I'd 
> >like to have that discussion explicitly.
> 
> The step of standardizing an attribute for this one case 
> seems bigger than adding another keyword.  If this were 
> viewed as turning off one of the standard warnings, and there 
> was reason to expect the addition of more such controls, then 
> I would agree with you.  But this can be viewed as just 
> another set of conditions distinct from the ones for unique 
> and priority, and different keywords have already been used 
> for that.  I don't see an indication that other variations of 
> this will be proposed (what other variations are left?)
> 
> For this one case, I don't think users would bother with 
> learning a new attribute-based mechanism.  If there is no 
> unique0, I expect they will just add an empty else/default.
> 
> 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.