Hi Geoffrey,
I don't follow, the restrictions are on the analog_filter_function_call syntax
item, not analog_primary. (basically can't be used in non-constant conditional
blocks)
analog_primary is the basic item for analog_expression.
By placing it in analog_primary it means that ddx() can only be used within the
analog context (or where ever analog_expression can be used.)
Placing in primary means it would be able to be used anywhere including inside
the digital context. I don't think we would want to allow that.
Cheers...
Dave
On 10/06/2010 08:52 AM, Geoffrey.Coram wrote:
> > 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
>>
>
>
-- ============================================== -- It's a beautiful day -- Don't let it get away -- -- 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.Received on Wed Oct 6 07:18:21 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 06 2010 - 07:18:22 PDT