Re: [sv-ec] Soft Constraints #2987 - minor syntax question

Why is that? Even if "soft" is not a keyword (which the committee seemed
to be preferring in any case), can you explain why a grammar couldn't reduce
"soft" to either a ident or a special token depending on the follow-set of
the token? Did you identify any definite ambiguities or was it just easier
to make it follow (which it clearly is)?

Gord.

On 8/15/2011 4:41 PM, Dhiraj Goswami wrote:
> Doing (a< 5 soft;) does not necessitates adding a key word. Whereas (soft a< 5) will need to add "soft" as a key word.
>
>
> Regards,
> Dhiraj
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Vreugdenhil
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 4:22 PM
> To: SV_EC List
> Subject: [sv-ec] Soft Constraints #2987 - minor syntax question
>
> In the syntax for the constraints, the "soft" keyword was used at the
> end of the constaint rather than the beginning. In most other
> contexts, qualifications lead (i.e. in declarations, etc) rather than
> follow, so wouldn't it make more sense to have: soft a< 5;
> rather than a< 5 soft;
>
> Is there a particular reason for the suffix form rather than the prefix
> or was it just personal preference?
>
> 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.