[sv-ec] RE: soft constraint proposal

Hillel,

The ordering of constructs (ie syntactic declaration order) is only significant for constraints declared in the same scope. So compilation order shouldn't be a factor.

How would an explicit ordering be specified? Wouldn't this require explicit knowledge of all existing constraints in order to add a 'higher' priority constraint?

Regards,
Ray

From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Miller Hillel-R53776
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 6:01 AM
To: Arturo Salz; 'sv-ec@eda.org' (sv-ec@eda.org)
Subject: [sv-ec] RE: soft constraint proposal

Arturo,

Is it a good idea to do implicit priority based on ordering of constructs?
This may have some pitfalls:

- Debugging tool complexity.

- Behavior changing based on compilation order.

- I don't recall precedence for this type of prioritization.

Perhaps an explicit ordering would be safer.

Thanks
Hillel

From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Arturo Salz
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 1:19 AM
To: 'sv-ec@eda.org' (sv-ec@eda.org)
Subject: [sv-ec] soft constraint proposal

I have uploaded a new proposal for Mantis 2987. The new write-up incorporates all the feedback we've had, including the following:

- Makes soft a keyword.

- Uses the suggested "disable soft" instead of empty dist to reset soft constraints.

- Decouples the disable functionality from the soft-dist. Now the two features can be specified separately.

- Includes the BNF change from solve_before_primary to constraint_primary.

    Arturo

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.