From: Steven Sharp (sharp@cadence.com)
Date: Tue Feb 15 2000 - 14:47:31 PST
> I reviewed the proposed and reproposed BNF for attributes. You found
> most of the places I though could also be included, here are a
> few more:
>
> udp_port_list
> function_item_declaration
> list_of_parameter_assignments
I didn't try to cover parameters. I don't think there is a problem with
it. However, if we add this, there are probably other things that should
be added for parameters. I'm not planning on going through them.
> combinational_entry
> sequential_entry
OK, if they are useful.
> case_item
> function_case_item
Do you actually need these, or is it sufficient to attach the attribute to
the statement_or_null on the case_item? There is a one-to-one relationship
between the case_item and the statement_or_null for it. Your not_reached
example makes just as much sense on the statement as on the case item.
> To note, do you wish to attach an attribute instance to
> module_or_generate_item, or only the place in generate_item?
> This specific place would allow attributes on any generated element.
I don't see any difference except for some redundancy of attribute_instances
in module_item.
> Are attribute instances going to be inside a module instantiation?
Not in the current proposal. And as you say, this probably won't cause
much grief.
If you want to add attributes to the extra locations you have mentioned, I
won't oppose it. However, you'll have to put in the extra effort on the
proposal and BNF to get them in.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Mon Jul 08 2002 - 12:54:12 PDT
and
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.