RE: hierarchical parameter passing in DC sweep

Kevin,

That is perfectly fine and understood.  I was just talking
about tool "features" which never make it into the LRM
(i.e. non-compliance).

However, talking about experience in IBIS, there is a problem
with this some times.  A tool vendor may implement something
their own way before the LRM has it.  Then the LRM people
start thinking and discover a bunch of compatibility, and
consistency issues, and write it up slightly differently.
Then the tool vendor says, we don't want to change it any
more, because we already have such and such an amount of
models written this way, and we don't want to start over
again...

Arpad
===============================================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Cameron [mailto:kevin@sonicsinc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:42 AM
To: Muranyi, Arpad
Cc: Verilog-A Reflector
Subject: Re: hierarchical parameter passing in DC sweep


...
...

Most of the stuff that gets put into LRMs at Accellera and the IEEE
is originally non-standard extension done by vendors, so it's not
unusual for support to be inconsistent for "new" features.

The committee's job to a large extent is to look at proposed extensions
and merge them into the LRM in clean and extensible ways - which
is generally easier if you have an implementation you can try out.
Since some ideas don't work that well in practice it's better for someone
to try them out first, also, the fact that someone has spent resource on
adding a feature implies that it is actually needed.

...
...