RE: errata/352: PROPOSAL - 10.2.2 implies task arguments can be left off

From: Brad Pierce (Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com)
Date: Thu Sep 04 2003 - 10:10:00 PDT

  • Next message: Karen Pieper: "Reminder for an ETF meeting Monday 9/8/03"

    Precedence: bulk

    The following reply was made to PR errata/352; it has been noted by GNATS.

    From: "Brad Pierce" <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com>
    To: <etf-bugs@boyd.com>
    Cc:
    Subject: RE: errata/352: PROPOSAL - 10.2.2 implies task arguments can be left off
    Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 09:59:38 -0700

     I think the t() notation is a natural one for tasks of
     no arguments. Why require a special notation for 0 args?
     Also, t() is already supported by VCS and Design
     Compiler.
     
     How about? --
     
        If the task definition has no arguments, a list of
        arguments need not be provided. Otherwise, there shall
        be an ordered list of expressions that matches the
        order of the list of arguments in the task definition.
     
     -- Brad
     
     

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 04 2003 - 10:10:28 PDT and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.