Re: [sv-bc] e-mail ballot: respond by Dec 3, 8am PST

Heath Chambers wrote:
>  > >SVDB  329 ___Yes   _X_No    
>  > >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=329
> 
> Same as Gord's reason AND
> I don't like the semicolons in the middle of a module/interface/program
> declaration.
> My second issue is a weak objection as I feel the feature needs to be
> added, so I will change my vote to yes if the BNF fixed and there isn't
> enough consensus to change to either comma or no separator (other than
> requiring a parameter and/or port list after the imports).


Heath, the issue of the ";" separator in the middle came up here
in some local discussions too.

Since the package_import_declaration allows a comma separated
list of package items:
      package_import_item { , package_import_item }
if we want to go to a single import form we could restructure
the grammar a bit:

      import_and_items ::=
         import package_import_item { , package_import_item }

      package_import_declaration ::= import_and_items ;

      header_import_declaration ::= import_and_items

We could then allow just a single "header_import_declaration" rather
than a list and restructure the example to just use the single
import.  I would be Ok with that change.  I wouldn't like to end
up with multiple "import" keywords in a comma separated list.

So I am Ok with:
      module M import p1::*, p2::* ();
but don't really like:
      module M import p1::* import p2::* ();


If there is a stronger consensus on the above suggestion, I'd
be fine with that.

Gord.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Vreugdenhil                                503-685-0808
Model Technology (Mentor Graphics)                gordonv@model.com


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