Subject: Re: Modified Proposal ... - modified syntax for "export"
From: Andrzej Litwiniuk (Andrzej.Litwiniuk@synopsys.com)
Date: Fri Nov 22 2002 - 10:00:00 PST
> So, if I understand you correctly is this allowed ?
>
> module outer;
> ...
> module inner;
> ...
> endmodule
> endmodule
Yes. Similarly for interfaces.
BTW, an interface may also define a function.
> >BTW: "modulename::" is probably not sufficient since module
> >declarations can be nested in SV it needs to be something
> >like:
> > modulename{.modulename}::
> >
> >- where the path is the declaration path (not the instance path).
>
> Good point Kevin.
> Except that the delimiter should be repeated '::'s
> since we're talking about nested scopes not nested instances.
> How about,
>
> modulename{::modulename}::
Right. What about interfaces? If we allow to export functions defined in interfaces
then the declaration path might look like:
{ (modulename|interfacename) :: } fname
> >I still think just quoting the C name works better:
> >
> > export [modulename::]fname "cname";
> >
> >- its more flexible, and less trouble to parse.
> >
> I like this too.
So we agreed to get rid of "as" and "function". Good.
Now, the controversy got narrowed down to the order ('cname fname' vs. 'fname cname')
and quotes. Either order is fine for me. Regarding quotes, I disagree with
"less trouble to parse", same trouble or the lack of, but whatever.
I can accept either version.
Andrzej
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Nov 22 2002 - 10:00:43 PST