Subject: Re: Parameter Interface Bugs?? Clarification?? Enhancement??
From: Adam Krolnik (krolnik@lsil.com)
Date: Wed Jan 09 2002 - 12:19:51 PST
Good afternoon;
Of the many combinations, I like #8 the best.
[BTW, if we had a different form than BNF, we could use tool to
produce legal combinations to see what we are creating...]
If we need to include localparams there, I like #10.
I'd rather have #8 (or 2nd choice #5) and not #1, #7.
I would prefer to not have a bunch of optional keywords;
#1 would be preferred to #7 and #8 if one wants to keep #1.
If we have #10, I would not like #11, #8, #7, #1
Quite confusing?
No localparameter, prefer #8, (#5 second) not others.
Localparameter, prefer #10 not others.
Adam Krolnik
Verification Mgr.
LSI Logic Corp.
Plano TX. 75074
My notes below...
[L-int = legal intended
Lbnf = legal by BNF
Cno = Cliff wants illegal
C-leg = Cliff wants legal
Stu-leg = Stuarts prefers
Mac-leg = Mac prefers
mistake = is this a mistake?
]
#1 Okay, (L-int C-leg
#2 Hate would prefer optional ; (Cno
#3 Hate, redundant delimiters (Lbnf, Cno, mistake
#4 okay, redundant though but okay. (Cno
#5 okay, like (Ldoc, C-leg, Stu-leg?
#6 okay, last ; is funny though (see #2) (Lbnf, Cno, mistake
#7 okay, preferable to #4 maybe. (L-int, C-leg, Stu-leg, Mac-leg
#8 The best! (C-leg, Mac-intrigue
#9 Would not prefer localparam in there, mixture of , and ;
will make for frustration on users point. (Cno
#10 Reasonable if localparam must be there. (C-leg
#11 This now looks funny don't need parameter, need localparamer.
I wouldn't make the parameter word optional if localparam
in there. (C-leg
#12 okay what's new here? (C-leg
#13 Same as #11 (C-leg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jan 09 2002 - 12:28:06 PST