Re: hierarchical_identifier

From: Gordon Vreugdenhil (gvreugde@synopsys.com)
Date: Wed Jan 15 2003 - 08:52:14 PST

  • Next message: Peter Flake: "Re: cleaning up 1364-2001"

    Precedence: bulk

    Dennis Marsa wrote:
    >
    > Precedence: bulk
    >
    > Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com wrote:
    > >
    > > Precedence: bulk
    > >
    > > I think it is possible to significantly simplify the BNF of
    > > hierarchical_identifier and I want to ask if someone sees a problem.
    > >
    > > Specifically, I propose to delete:
    > >
    > > simple_hierarchical_branch
    > > simple_hierarchical_identifier
    > > escaped_hierarchical_branch
    > > escaped_hierarchical_identifier
    > >
    > > and replace hierarchical_identifier with the following:
    > >
    > > hierarchical_identifier ::=
    > > {identifier ["["unsigned_number"]"] .} identifier
    > >
    > > This seems to me to be the correct way to define it.
    > >
    > > Shalom
    >
    > I agree some significant simplication can probably be made
    > here.
    >
    > I think this ties in with the generate discussion, as the
    > indexing syntax allows reaching into a generate-for.
    >
    > Here is another possible definition for hierarchical_identifier:
    >
    > hierarchical_identifier ::=
    > { identifier [ "[" constant_expression "]" ] "." } identifier

    I generally prefer allowing "constant_expression" here although
    we might need to be careful about the implications of this in
    the context of genvars. I don't think there are any problems,
    but I need to think about that a bit more.

    Gord. 

    -- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gord Vreugdenhil                                 gvreugde@synopsys.com
Staff Engineer, VCS (Verification Tech. Group)   (503) 547-6054
Synopsys Inc., Beaverton OR

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 08:53:43 PST and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.