RE: [sv-bc] E-mail Ballot Due Monday, June 8, 8AM PDT

You mean the friendly amendment to 2667, not 2677.
But it does not solve the problem.
Brad's point is that parameter declarations can be without a default only within a parameter port list in the module header, not parameter declarations inside the module body.
So the example is not good because it uses an illegal syntax.

Shalom 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Clifford E. Cummings
> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 10:02 PM
> To: sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] E-mail Ballot Due Monday, June 8, 8AM PDT
> 
> The Annex footnote is a too far away from the appropriate text to be 
> very useful or even noticed. I believe the proposed friendly 
> amendment solves the problem.
> 
> Thanks, Brad for pointing this out.
> 
> Regards - Cliff
> 
> At 11:30 AM 6/7/2009, Brad Pierce wrote:
> > > SVDB 2667 - No
> >
> >Also, as noted in bugnote 8449, the following parameter assignment 
> >is illegal according to footnote 18
> >
> >            parameter type T2;
> >
> >-- Brad
> >...
> >
> >SVDB 2677 - No
> >Proposed friendly amendment
> >http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2677
> >
> >When I first read the proposed wording, it looked like the forward
> >typedef could be in an earlier scope or in a later scope ("scope
> >either before or after the final type definition"). Add "same" and a
> >comma after "scope" and the ambiguity goes away.
> >
> >WAS:
> >... It shall be legal to have a forward type declaration in the scope
> >either before or after the final type definition.
> >
> >PROPSED:
> >... It shall be legal to have a forward type declaration in the same
> >scope, either before or after the final type definition.
> >
> >If I understand the proposal correctly, it just says you can have as
> >many forward typedefs in a scope and put them anywhere, although the
> >practice seems faulty and confusing to me. It only allows for one
> >final type definition, which is then applied to all forward typedefs,
> >wherever they might be placed within the same scope. Is this correct?
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Cliff Cummings - Sunburst Design, Inc.
> 14314 SW Allen Blvd., PMB 501, Beaverton, OR 97005
> Phone: 503-641-8446 / FAX: 503-641-8486
> cliffc@sunburst-design.com / www.sunburst-design.com
> Expert Verilog, SystemVerilog, Synthesis and Verification Training
> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.