RE: [sv-cc] Feedback/issues re. #2182 (VPI Checkers proposal)

I believe that any potentially missing relations are
covered by the "scope" arrow.

Your original query mentioned specifically "programs",
and those are covered both by the existing "scope"
arrow and the existing "instance" arrow.

Regards,
Jim Vellenga

--------------------------------------------------------- 
James H. Vellenga                            978-262-6381 
Software Architect                     (FAX) 978-262-6636 
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.         vellenga@cadence.com 
270 Billerica Rd
Chelmsford, MA 01824-4179
"We all work with partial information." 
----------------------------------------------------------  

]-----Original Message-----
]From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com] 
]Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 10:34 AM
]To: Jim Vellenga; Chuck Berking; erik.seligman@intel.com
]Cc: sv-cc@eda.org
]Subject: RE: [sv-cc] Feedback/issues re. #2182 (VPI Checkers proposal)
]
]Hi,
]
]
]> I don't know why modules were singled out, but that has been 
]> the case since IEEE Std 1364-2001.  That's before I was 
]> active in this particular standards effort.
]
]1364-2001 did not have programs and interfaces. 
]
] 
]> It may be that, at that time, someone noticed that all the 
]> other "parameter" types could only be associated with 
]> modules, and not with scopes in general, and so added the 
]> arrow to "module" for consistency.
]
]I'm not sure what you mean by that. Even in 1364-2001, scopes (tasks,
]functions, named blocks) could have parameters.
]
] 
]> It seems a bit odd, since, at least according to the formal 
]> syntax of IEEE Std 1364-2001, it looks like a parameter could 
]> also have been a "generate item".
]> But perhaps the PTF and BTF were not fully synchronized back 
]> in those days.
]
]Generate regions cannot contain parameters even today.
]In 1364-2001, they could not contain local parameters either.
]I think we added that possibility in 1364-2005.
]
] 
]> At any rate, we now have a number of places in the object 
]> model where we have retained stray relations to modules for 
]> backward compatibility.  You can look at
]> "36.16 Variable" in Draft 6, for example.  There's no 
]> particular reason, other than backward compatibility, why the 
]> arrow should be there for "module", and no particular reason, 
]> other than the avoidance of unnecessary clutter, why one 
]> couldn't add relations to "program", "interface", "package", 
]> "gen scope", "task func", "class defn", "class typespec", 
]> "class obj", and so on.
]> 
]> So overall, given the balance between simplicity and backward 
]> compatibility, I'd prefer to leave the diagrams for 742 the 
]> way they are.
]
]I'm less bothered by stray relations. I'd like to be reassured that
]there aren't missing relations, though.
]
]Shalom 
]---------------------------------------------------------------------
]Intel Israel (74) Limited
]
]This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
]the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
]by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
]recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
]
]

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.