Re: Regarding ddx operator location in grammar

> and make analog_partial_derivative_function_call part of analog_primary.

Doesn't it need to be part of "primary" rather than "analog_primary"?
Otherwise it's still subject to the same restrictions as
analog_filter_function_call (which is part of analog_primary).

-Geoffrey

David Miller wrote:
> This was what I was suggesting for the ddx() operator.
>
> Currently it is lumped with the analog_filter_function_call which
> contains transition/ddt/idt/slew etc.
> The analog filter functions have a lot of restrictions, so in the
> document we have all these cases where we apply these restrictions
> *except* if the filter function is ddx.
>
> I suggest that we pull ddx() out to its own syntax item:
>
> analog_partial_derivative_function_call ::=
> ddx ( analog_expression , branch_probe_function_call )
>
> and make analog_partial_derivative_function_call part of analog_primary.
>
> Regards
> Dave
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.