Re: Namespaces and Macros ambiguity in 1666-2005

Puneet,

Yes, agreed. I have already removed this reference to macros.

The macros SC_MODULE and SC_CTOR have always been replaceable by explicit
code, but not so the process macros and SC_HAS_PROCESS. I don't think this
is going to change (just my opinion).

John A

From:
Puneet Goel <p.goel@acm.org>
To:
systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Cc:
john.aynsley@doulos.com
Date:
04/04/2010 10:16
Subject:
Namespaces and Macros ambiguity in 1666-2005
Sent by:
puneet@coverify.org

Greetings
 
Section 3.3.4 of the IEEE 1666-2005 states ....

An implementation shall place every declaration and every macro definition
specified by this standard within one of the two namespaces sc_core and
sc_dt.

IMO, this is misleading since cpp macros are not governed by the C++
namespaces.

Also, given the list of macros in the present standard, I feel a lot of
these could be converted to (or replaced by) inline functions.

Regards
- Puneet

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