RE: [sv-bc] Macro mantis proposals 1397 & 1478

Your example Gord does not break the interpretation I gave it, maybe I
wasn't clear enough.  In your case, the escaped identifier is in the
macro call not the macro definition.  I was referring to the macro
definition.  

So if you did this instead:

    `define ONE_PLUS(\x ) 1+\x

    module m;
       int y , z;
       initial z = `ONE_PLUS(y);
    endmodule

You should compile fail because the \x has any additional white space
stripped, thus when your `ONE_PLUS call uses y and puts no space after
"y" the semicolon at the end of that line becomes part of the escaped
identifier.  Granted, that again violates 21.5.1, but my point is that
this is not legal and will fail.

Correct me if I am wrong:)

-Tom

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gordon Vreugdenhil [mailto:gordonv@model.com]
>Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:41 PM
>To: Alsop, Thomas R
>Cc: Brad Pierce; sv-bc@server.eda.org
>Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Macro mantis proposals 1397 & 1478
>
>
>
>Alsop, Thomas R wrote:
>> Brad, I think you are making a good point that the escaped identifier
>> should be interpreted, per your example, as not having any white
space.
>>  The example you are using is creating a half token example.  If the
>> white space wasn't stripped out, yes you wouldn't violate 21.5.1, but
>> you would compile fail after the text is replaced with the wire
>> assignment.  IMHO, this white space stripping proposal is the correct
>> implementation even WRT to your escaped identifier example.  If you
have
>> an escaped identifier as a macro replacement, the end user must be
smart
>> enough to recognize the implications of escaped identifiers, i.e. you
>> must have white space to terminate it.  I constantly emphasize this
in
>> my classes.  Thus if macros are using escaped identifiers and
>> _/terminating/_ with them, the usage of that macro better dang well
have
>> the terminating spaces, or you have screwed yourself.
>
>
>I completely disagree with this.  Please see my response to Brad.
>
>Requiring such an interpretation would break existing code.
>
>    `define ONE_PLUS(x) 1+x
>
>    module m;
>       int \y , z;
>       initial z = `ONE_PLUS(\y );
>    endmodule
>
>This is legal currently and if your intent is to make this illegal,
>I am going to oppose the change.
>
>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.