RE: Bug in file_path_spec: libraries

From: Jayaram Bhasker (jbhasker@cadence.com)
Date: Thu May 09 2002 - 08:14:59 PDT


Precedence: bulk

------------------------------------------------
At 03:29 PM 5/3/02 -0600, Dennis wrote:
>Precedence: bulk
>
>Adam Krolnik wrote:
> >
> > Precedence: bulk
> >
> > Hello Jayaram;
> >
> > The specifications do not include double quotes to specify
> > filenames. Since the library mapping file deals with mostly
> > filenames, we saw no need to require quoted filenames.
> >
> > Example 13.7.3 incorrectly specifies quotes when should not
> > be specified.

Cliff>>True. We voted to remove the "" as unnecessary. This is a typo. The smart
quotes are especially annoying in this example.

>Yet, the include_statement production shown in the
>Syntax 13-2 box on page 201 requires an include file
>name be delimited with <>!

Cliff>>This is a typo. No <> required (or valid).
------------------------------------------------

This indeed is getting interesting. So now
there are two forms of include's (different syntax, identical meaning?):

'include "/a/b/c.d" -- a compiler directive
include /a/b/c.d; -- include in a configuration

>From 13.2.2, it appears that the semantic meaning of the config-include is
same as that of the include compiler directive. If so, what was the reason for the config-include?
Can I use the include compiler directive in place of the config-include?

- bhasker



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 08 2002 - 12:55:36 PDT and
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.