RE: [sv-bc] 10.8 Named blocks and statement labels - question

I agree that it might be classified as an enhancement. What Mac has
asked is what is the justification for the restriction. I still have not
heard a clear answer.

Shalom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich, Dave [mailto:Dave_Rich@mentor.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 7:43 PM
> To: Bresticker, Shalom; sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] 10.8 Named blocks and statement labels -
> question
> 
> No, Named blocks currently only have one name. Statement labels
> are
> another way to express a named block. If you want named blocks
> to have
> two names, that's another enhancement.
> 
> Nesting block names is not the same as giving one block two
> names.
> 
> 
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com]
> > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 9:31 AM
> > To: Rich, Dave; sv-bc@eda.org
> > Subject: RE: [sv-bc] 10.8 Named blocks and statement labels -
> question
> >
> > That's a circular answer, I think: they can have only one
> name because
> > they can have only one name.
> >
> > Shalom
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Rich, Dave [mailto:Dave_Rich@mentor.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 7:27 PM
> > > To: Michael (Mac) McNamara; Steven Sharp; Bresticker,
> Shalom;
> > > sv-bc@eda.org
> > > Subject: RE: [sv-bc] 10.8 Named blocks and statement labels
> -
> > > question
> > >
> > > Because a statement label is just syntactic sugar for a
> named
> > > block, and
> > > right now, named blocks only have one name.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Michael (Mac) McNamara
> [mailto:mcnamara@cadence.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 8:46 AM
> > > > To: Rich, Dave; Steven Sharp;
> shalom.bresticker@intel.com;
> > > sv-bc@eda.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [sv-bc] 10.8 Named blocks and statement
> labels -
> > > question
> > > >
> > > > Just curious: what is so bad about allowing multiple
> names
> > > for the
> > > same
> > > > block of code?  I do not know of other languages with
> such a
> > > > restriction.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Michael McNamara
> > > > mcnamara@cadence.com
> > > > 408-914-6808 work
> > > > 408-348-7025 cell
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On
> > > Behalf Of
> > > > Rich, Dave
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 4:20 PM
> > > > To: Steven Sharp; shalom.bresticker@intel.com; sv-
> bc@eda.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [sv-bc] 10.8 Named blocks and statement
> labels -
> > > question
> > > >
> > > > Steve,
> > > >
> > > > The reason the rule "It shall be illegal to have both a
> label
> > > before a
> > > > begin or fork and a block name after the begin or fork."
> > > exists is
> > > > because there is only one block being created; otherwise,
> it
> > > wouldn't
> > > > have been a problem.
> > > >
> > > > I've got someone writing a proposal to put normative text
> > > that
> > > supports
> > > > the example.
> > > >
> > > > Dave
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Steven Sharp [mailto:sharp@cadence.com]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 4:53 PM
> > > > > To: shalom.bresticker@intel.com; sv-bc@eda.org; Rich,
> Dave
> > > > > Subject: RE: [sv-bc] 10.8 Named blocks and statement
> labels
> > > -
> > > question
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >From: "Rich, Dave" <Dave_Rich@mentor.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > >Well, section 17.2 does say so explicitly and there is
> an
> > > example
> > > in
> > > > > >10.8 of both a begin/end and fork/join with a matching
> end
> > > label.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, 17.2 says that it creates a named block
> around
> > > the
> > > statement
> > > > > to which it applies.  This means that the label would
> not
> > > name the
> > > > > begin/end that it was attached to, but would create a
> new
> > > named
> > > block
> > > > > around the statement (the begin/end) that it was
> attached
> > > to.