From: James A. Markevitch (jam@magic.com)
Date: Thu Sep 30 1999 - 13:20:53 PDT
Here are some more comments on draft 3. These cover sections 2 and 3.
James Markevitch
jam@magic.com
10. page 9, section 2.5.1
In the paragraph which begins "Simple decimal numbers", there is a typo.
The sentence reads "shall be treated signed integers" but should read
"shall be treated as signed integers".
11. page 10, section 2.5.1
The last two examples of "Using sign with constant numbers" use the
incorrect single-quote character before the base character.
12. page 16, section 2.8
The examples here are inconsistent among themselves and some are
incosistent with respect to the BNF regarding having a semi-colon
at the end of an attribute list. Some of the examples have this and
some don't. The BNF in Annex A seems to have a semi-colon, but it
is not in bold. The Syntax 2-3 on page 15 has no semi-colon.
13. page 17, section 3
Here, and on page 18, are some references to B39. But, that's the
$plusargs$value enhancement, so I don't know what's really being
referred to here. I realize these tags don't matter as far as the
standard is concerned, but want to make sure nothing got lost in
the shuffle.
14. page 19, section 3.2.2
The big "CAUTION" box indicates that the retained value for a reg will
always be unsigned. What about signed reg's?
15. page 27, section 3.9
This section is inconsistent regarding when "integer" and "time" are
emboldened and when they use a normal weight font.
16. page 29, section 3.10.1
Syntax 3-4 table has "= =" in it instead of "=".
17. page 29, section 3.10.1
Why is section 3.10.1 (localparams) a subsection of 3.10 (arrays)?
Shouldn't this be a subsection of 3.11?
18. page 30, section 3.10.4.1.3
These examples all assume the declarations of section 3.10.4.1.1. The
mema declaration of 3.10.4.1.2 conflicts with that, making the example
"mema[1] = 0" potentially misleading.
Suggest swapping sections 3.10.4.1.2 and 3.10.4.1.3 so that the assignment
section directly follows the "array declaration" section. Further, the
beginning of the assignment section should include a sentence which
indicates that the declarations section is being assumed, such as:
"The assignment statements in this section assume the presence of the
declarations in section 3.10.4.1.1."
19. page 33, section 3.12
I think BE84 was misleading on how to edit this section.
The sentence "Once a name is used to define a module, ..." should have
replaced the last sentence in the first paragraph of the section (in
draft 2), not the last sentence of the entire section. In other words,
this sentence refers to the definitions name space, not the specify
block name space.
This also means that the last sentence of the last paragraph of this
section from draft 2 should be reinstated. That sentence was "Any other
type of name cannot be defined in this name space."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Mon Jul 08 2002 - 12:53:29 PDT
and
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.