Subject: RE: [sv-cc] RE: Version 2 of DPI LRM
From: Warmke, Doug (doug_warmke@mentorg.com)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 22:07:28 PST
My "informal poll" answers on naming below...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Rohleder [mailto:michael.rohleder@motorola.com]
> > Thus I opt for:
> >
> > svOpenArrayHandle
> > svScopeHandle (Scope or Context or Instance?)
>
> Fine with me.
DOUG: Fine with me, too.
>
> > Regards,
> > Andrzej
> >
> > PS. Since we are already polling (yet informally), may we
> revive the poll
> > on include files names?
> >
> > 1) svc.h + svc_src.h
> > 2) dpi.h + dpi_src.h
> > 3) svdpi.h + svdpi_src.h
> > 4) sv_dpi.h + sv_dpi_src.h
>
> > 5) sv_dpi_c.h + sv_dpi_c_src.h
> >
> > I opt for 5) because: SV + DPI + C; layers for other languages are
> > conceivable for DPI, similarly like other interfaces are
> conceivable for SV
> > (and they even do exist, e.g. VPI).
>
> I like 4) more - basically I doubt that there will be ever
> other header files. And when, then they will very likely
> provide some mapping
> from the C function call semantics to the other foreign
> language. But all others are O.K. as well. Pick one.
DOUG: I like 2), 2nd choice would be 3).
I think 5) is just too long with too many underscores.
Agree with Michael's point about the unlikelihood of
other header files in the future, too.
Thanks and Regards,
Doug
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Mar 13 2003 - 22:08:15 PST