Subject: Re: 1364.1 pragmas
From: John Michael Williams (jwill@AstraGate.net)
Date: Wed Oct 09 2002 - 19:57:17 PDT
Hi Paul.
Paul Graham wrote:
>
> > My suggestion was to define the syntax
> > of attributes NOT by using comments, but
> > by using a token string which would be
> > read (=ignored) as a comment by tools not
> > equipped to read attributes.
>
> Doesn't using "(* ... *)" match your suggestion? A tool that wishes
> to ignore attributes can easily do so.
>
> Paul
So far as I know, only certain Verilog tools will
treat "(* . . .*)" as a comment (=ignore it). It
actually is a Pascal comment syntactically, so a
Pascal compiler would treat it as a comment.
The suggestion I made was to standardize on a
language-independent format for attributes. The first
requirement would be that the format should be ignored by
tools not programmed to parse it. So far as I know,
only a format beginning with an open-comment string
could fulfill that. It's just logic, here.
Some of the format would be an interface to the language;
other of it would define, or maybe declare, the attribute.
I'm not stuck on comment formats for the interface, but I
can't think of anything else that would work.
If you are not interested in a language-independent attribute
format, then of course, this won't mean anything to you.
--
John
jwill@AstraGate.net
John Michael Williams
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Oct 09 2002 - 20:03:22 PDT