On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 08:43 -0500, 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.
Do we want to emphasize the fact that ddx() should be reserved to
expressions not involved into contributions ? I have a feeling that
second derivatives (which are needed only in the ddx() case) won't work
that well with all simulators. The LRM already notes that internal
unknowns created by the simulator may also break ddx().
Xav
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Oct 6 07:02:01 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 06 2010 - 07:02:02 PDT