Date: Wed Jul 11 2007 - 18:47:33 PDT
I would at least like to see them split into text processing directives, and then all the other semantic altering directives. Dave ________________________________ From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Premduth Vidyanandan Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 1:41 PM To: Gran, Alex; Bresticker, Shalom; sv-bc@server.eda.org Subject: RE: [sv-bc] lrm compiler directive order Hi, I would like to vote to brining it back to the alphabetical order as Shalom suggests. Thanks Duth ________________________________ From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Gran, Alex Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:16 PM To: Bresticker, Shalom; sv-bc@server.eda.org Subject: RE: [sv-bc] lrm compiler directive order 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 <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is believed to be clean. -- 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.
