Subject: Re: Modified Proposal ... - modified syntax for "export"
From: Andrzej Litwiniuk (Andrzej.Litwiniuk@synopsys.com)
Date: Wed Nov 20 2002 - 11:44:59 PST
> However I kind of like the flow of the english sentence better with
> "as".
>
> export [modulename::] function fname [as cname];
> Kind of rolls off the tongue easier don't you think ?
Well, I can recall COBOL: "ADD A TO B GIVING C ON ERROR GO TO ..."
which was definitely more intuitive than C: "while(*p++|=*q++);".
> But either way is fine with me.
> -- johnS
Either way is fine with me, too. Though: a keyword saved is an identifier
earned.
Andrzej
> export_decl ::=
>
> export access_mode ? attribute (, attribute) * ?
>
> function | task [modulename::]fname as cname;
>
> John,
>
>
>
> Although this is a minor issue, I propose to modify the syntax for
>
> the export declaration.
>
> Note that the whole information about the exported function or task is
>
> available to SV compiler, so there is no need to provide redundant
>
> information like function/task; also attribute, access_mode seem
> irrelevant
>
> here. Also a new keyword "as" better be avoided.
>
> I recon that the gist of your proposal is cname. The syntax may look as
> follows:
>
>
> export_decl ::= export [cname] [modulename::] fname ;
>
> cname is optional here, it will default to fname (for example, for
> functions
>
> defined in $root scope).
> Andrzej
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Nov 20 2002 - 11:46:02 PST