RE: Clarification Regarding Constant Analog UDF's

The statement is correct. I'll explain later.

Shalom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-verilog-ams@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-verilog-
> ams@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Dave Miller
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 6:18 PM
> To: Martin O'Leary
> Cc: Verilog-AMS LRM Committee
> Subject: Re: Clarification Regarding Constant Analog UDF's
> 
> Hi Martin,
> Okay so since we want to try and stay in sync with Verilog 1364, then
> sounds like we can also allow constant analog user defined functions,
as
> well as recursively calling a analog UDF (I can do this in digital).
> 
> The restrictions on constant functions that digital mentions in 10.4.5
> (1364-2005) seem okay and we can adopt them where necessary although I
> can't think of any statements that are allowed in an analog UDF that
> couldn't be used in a constant context.
> However I don't understand the last restriction that digital mentions:
> " - They shall not themselves use constant functions in any context
> requiring a constant expression."
> 
> I wonder if that is a typo and should read "They shall themselves use
> ....." as it seems strange to restrict a constant function from using
a
> constant function.
> 
> Cheers...
> Dave
> 
> Martin O'Leary wrote:
> > Dave,
> > this restriction may have been because we thought that 1364 didn't
> allow
> > functions to appear in a parameter context.
> >
> > However I understand form one our Verilog experts this has been and
> 1364
> > supports this with restrictions (see 10.3.5 of the 1364-2001)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --Martin
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-verilog-ams@eda.org [mailto:owner-verilog-ams@eda.org]
On
> > Behalf Of Dave Miller
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8:55 AM
> > To: Verilog-AMS LRM Committee
> > Subject: Clarification Regarding Constant Analog UDF's
> >
> > Hello Graham, Hello all,
> > During last weeks call I inquired as to why we don't allow constant
> > analog user defined functions within the new revised BNF.
> Unfortunately
> > I didn't properly document the reasoning that was given and now I
> can't
> > remember.
> >
> > Would it not also be a good idea to allow constant analog UDF's? I
was
> > thinking this would be useful also in a analog only context as it
> would
> > give the option of assigning a complex expression to a parameter
using
> a
> > analog UDF instead of using a macro function for example. This would
> > allow more flexibility for the user.
> >
> > Regards
> > Dave
> >
> > --
> > =====================================
> > -- David Miller
> > -- Design Technology (Austin)
> > -- Freescale Semiconductor
> > -- Ph : 512 996-7377 Fax: x7755
> > =====================================
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> =====================================
> -- David Miller
> -- Design Technology (Austin)
> -- Freescale Semiconductor
> -- Ph : 512 996-7377 Fax: x7755
> =====================================