Doug, > Second, I fail to see how this violates Mantis 1851. > Can you please explain why you think that, Shalom? > I studied both proposals carefully. If you consider that > it's only legal to omit default values of parameters > specified in parameter port lists, the rest of the sentences > make sense and are consistent with 1851, in my opinion. The conflict between 907 and 1851 is that 907, which is based on current text, says/implies that internal parameter declarations are localparams only if there is a parameter port list, as with modules. 1851, which is based on Mantis 1515 and other LRM text, says that internal parameter declarations in a class are always localparams, even if there is no parameter port list at all, and so also says the proposal for 1851. Regards, Shalom --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Israel (74) Limited This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Sun Sep 30 12:40:15 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 12:40:28 PDT