Re: Regarding $limit

Hi, Sri -
During the call, I think you suggested that the second argument
should first be matched against built-in algorithms, then
against UDFs, and if no match is found, then $limit(x,...)
returns just x.

In this way, you could define a simple pnjlim as a UDF
for a simulator (maybe zspice?) that doesn't have its own
version of pnjlim -- or a templim with the thought that
advanced simulators will eventually figure out a good way
to do temperature limiting. The UDF would be a fall-back,
but not preclude the use of an improved built-in limiting
function.

This seems useful to me, and thus I would argue against
the syntactic difference.

-Geoffrey

Chandrasekaran Srikanth-A12788 wrote:
>
> Hi Geoffrey,
>
> Just wanted to get understanding on syntax notation for second argument on $limit. Is the second argument to $limit is it going to be a string or identifier?
>
> Now we are going to support both simulator and analog UDFs as limiting functions as per the discussions this morning - I was wondering whether this would be possible:
>
> $limit(V(d,s), "pnjlim", vcrit); // second argument string which is spice/simulator inbuilt function
> $limit(V(d,s), myLimitFn, vcrit); // second argument is an identifier which then refers to a analog UDF.
>
> This is will be then easier to identify during parsing whether the designer is referring to spice or UDF limiting function.
>
> Regards,
> Sri
Received on Wed Apr 7 06:47:14 2004