Re: SC_IGNORE_VERBOSITY

Hi John,

Yes you're right - that was my original idea, that in future it would be
possible to add new enumerations. You know the name of the last one
regardless of what intervenes.
Having done that, it then occurred to me you could make a completely
backward compatible single function call.

However I guess it's only a theoretical idea in a way, as unless people
add proprietary verbosity levels, the next time the verbosity levels could
change would be in 2015 (or 2016?).

I'm not too fussed, it was just an idea. It's not very object-orientated I
know :-(

Alan

-- 
Alan Fitch
Senior Consultant
From:
John Aynsley/doulos
To:
bpriya@cadence.com, systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org, Alan 
Fitch/doulos@DOULOS
Date:
08/12/2010 02:48
Subject:
SC_IGNORE_VERBOSITY
Alan,
See Bishupriya's comment below. Perhaps I've misunderstood, but I thought 
the intent of SC_IGNORE_VERBOSITY was to allow applications to extend the 
enumeration, and was unrelated to having an optional argument?
Thanks,
John A
-----Bishnupriya Bhattacharya <bpriya@cadence.com> wrote: -----
To: "john.aynsley@doulos.com" <john.aynsley@doulos.com>
From: Bishnupriya Bhattacharya <bpriya@cadence.com>
Date: 12/07/2010 05:41PM
Cc: Bishnupriya Bhattacharya <bpriya@cadence.com>
Subject: RE: Verbosity Control
John,
 
I'm fine with content below, with the following comments:
 
1) The enum SC_IGNORE_VERBOSITY = 9999 was proposed by Alan for the case 
where we have only one report() signature with an optional verbosity 
argument at the end. We are not going with that signature. Philip had also 
not liked this enum. So I don't think we need this enum. 
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.