Subject: Re: Modified Proposal ... - modified syntax for "export"
From: Warmke, Doug (doug_warmke@mentorg.com)
Date: Fri Nov 22 2002 - 10:03:15 PST
I agree with all Andrzej's points.
Similarly, I could accept whatever minor variant you guys choose.
Regards,
Doug
Andrzej Litwiniuk wrote:
> >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 - 10:05:05 PST