Re: Comments on Version 2.3 draft 3

So definitely an underscore is missing from that statement:

analog initial analog_function_statement

The same is true for the BNF on page 345 (362 of the PDF).

I have no problem with the name of the analog_function_statement syntax
rule.

Cheers,
Marq


owner-verilog-ams@server.eda.org wrote on 28-03-2008 16:58:22:
> No it was deliberate.
> analog initial blocks can only contain the same subset of statements /
> expressions that are allowed in Analog UDFs. i.e. they can't contain
> contributions, analog filter functions (ddt,idt, etc.)
>
> So that is why analog_function statement is used in this context-
> but yes it is
> a little confusing. Maybe the analog_function_statement could be renamed
to
> something more meaningful to both analog UDF's and initial blocks,
> but I can't
> think of anything - perhaps analog_independent_statement ?
>
> Dave
>
> Geoffrey.Coram wrote:
> > Page 89 (106 of PDF):
> >
> > analog initial analog_function statement
> >
> > I think "analog_function" was accidentally copied.
> >
> > -Geoffrey
> >
>
> --
> =====================================
> -- David Miller
> -- Design Technology (Austin)
> -- Freescale Semiconductor
> -- Ph : 512 996-7377 Fax: x7755
> =====================================
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.