RE: [sv-bc] lrm compiler directive order

From: Gran, Alex <alex_gran_at_.....>
Date: Wed Jul 11 2007 - 11:16:06 PDT
I don't have a very strong opinion on this.  So if others do feel
strongly one way or another I will happily back down.
 
I tend to like having `define, `include and `ifdef towards the top
because these seem to directives that are more commonly used.  Where as
at least in code I've seen from users `pragma and `begin_keywords are
not as often used, so I'm fine with them being at the bottom of the
section.
 
~Alex

________________________________

From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 5:17 AM
To: sv-bc@server.eda.org
Subject: [sv-bc] lrm compiler directive order


Hi,
 
In 1364-1995, compiler directives were ordered in the LRM
alphabetically. (Some directives were described in the same subclause as
another, and then the order went by the first directive in the
subclause.)
 
In 1364-2001, the order was almost preserved, except that somehow `line
got into the wrong place.
 
1364-2005 messed up by adding `pragma and `begin_keywords at the end.
 
Now P1800 doesn't seem to have any particular order.
 
Can we go back to the alphabetical order?
 
Thanks,
Shalom
 

Shalom Bresticker

Intel Jerusalem LAD DA

+972 2 589-6852

+972 54 721-1033

 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is

believed to be clean. 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.



Blank Bkgrd.gif
Received on Wed Jul 11 11:16:33 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 11 2007 - 11:17:01 PDT