Re: [sv-bc] DataTypes: The wone net type

From: Krishna Garlapati (krishna@synplicity.com)
Date: Fri Oct 29 2004 - 00:40:03 PDT

  • Next message: Stuart Sutherland: "RE: [sv-bc] DataTypes: The wone net type"

    Sure, but that's not exactly what I meant. My main point was that
    why not extend 'default_nettype to user defined types (of nets) ?
    If this can be done, an attribute route would still be acceptable.

    That said, I dont have a problem with the idea of wone and I would
    not get into the how many/few customers thing. If they want it, who
    am I to say no.

    Thanks,
    - Krishna.

    Steven Sharp wrote:
    >>At the risk of getting into an argument for the sake of it, that brings
    >>up another question. When SV data types are extended to nets why not
    >>allow `default_nettype to be legal with any user defined net data type ??
    >
    >
    > Krishna, the "net types" in `default_nettype are not the data types, but
    > are the object "kinds". They are independent or orthogonal to the
    > data types. They are not user defined, and the work being done in this
    > group doesn't change that.
    >
    >
    >>Once that happens, a user can create custom data types with the wone like
    >>attribute and use it along with `default_nettype. While I have nothing
    >>against wone like nets, I am only wondering why make the language any bigger
    >
    >
    > Since users cannot create new net types (i.e. "kinds" in the nomenclature
    > being used in this group), there is no facility for doing this themselves.
    >
    >
    >>1) if an attribute can capture the essence of a new construct
    >>2) (and) it's something a select few would be interested in ??
    >
    >
    > How few you think would be interested in it may depend on what customers
    > you have been talking to.
    >
    > Steven Sharp
    > sharp@cadence.com
    >
    >
    >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 29 2004 - 00:29:46 PDT and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.