Re: errata/113: revised generate proposal

From: Jason Woolf (jasonw@cadence.com)
Date: Thu Jul 08 2004 - 09:30:00 PDT

  • Next message: stefen@boyd.com: "errata/586: PROPOSAL - signedness of case expression size extensions (9.5)"

    The following reply was made to PR errata/113; it has been noted by GNATS.

    From: Jason Woolf <jasonw@cadence.com>
    To: Shalom.Bresticker@freescale.com
    Cc: etf-bugs@boyd.com
    Subject: Re: errata/113: revised generate proposal
    Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 12:23:38 -0400 (EDT)

     Shalom,
     
     My initial document did not use that term. I suspect this is because the
     LRM does not define a similar term for module scopes. Since there are only
     a couple of places with "generate scope" has been used, perhaps the best
     way to go is to replace each use of "generate scope" with a term that is
     more consistent with pre-existing language.
     
     For example, in section 10.3.5, where it now says,
     
       -- They shall not be declared inside a generate scope.
       
     we could use "generate block" instead. In the text following Example 4 in
     section 12.4.1, where it now says,
     
       ... These generate scope names can be used in hierarchical path names
     
     we could remove "generate scope" from this sentence without diminishing the
     meaning of the sentence. Or replace it with "indexed".
     
     Can you do something similar with issue #17?
     
     -Jason
     
     
     
    > From: Shalom.Bresticker@freescale.com
    > Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 17:19:51 +0300 (IDT)
    > To: Jason Woolf <jasonw@cadence.com>
    > cc: etf-bugs@boyd.com
    > Subject: Re: errata/113: revised generate proposal
    >
    > Hi, Jason,
    >
    > I think I need a minor edit of the generate document.
    >
    > While working on the proposal for issue #17, which uses the term
    > "generate scope" in a forward reference, and I wanted to add a
    > cross-reference to its definition, I found that it does not seem to be
    > explicitly defined.
    >
    > The term is also used in the new 12.4 a number of times. Although when I
    > reviewed it, I know I found and understand its meaning, I think it would
    > be good to add a sentence which explicitly defines it, of the sort,
    > "A <i>generate scope</i> is ...".
    >
    > Can you do that?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Shalom
    >
    > --
    > Shalom Bresticker Shalom.Bresticker @freescale.com
    > Design & Reuse Methodology Tel: +972 9 9522268
    > Freescale Semiconductor Israel, Ltd. Fax: +972 9 9522890
    > POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL Cell: +972 50 5441478
    >
    > [ ]Freescale Internal Use Only [ ]Freescale Confidential Proprietary
    >
    >
     

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 08 2004 - 09:30:12 PDT and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.