Following on from yesterdays telecon, here is a list of carry-over topics from the last standardisation process which we might want to address in this standard. Please can people take a look and comment to the reflector in anticipation of a further discussion on what we do with them in a future telecon Cheers, Darren Issue 2765 - LRM Sect 1.1: Scope Update section 1.1 of the LRM, "Scope," to match the scope of the current PAR Issue 2763 - semicolons as separators The LRM always refers to semicolons as separators. It never specifically allows a semicolon following the last language element, as is found in much existing e code. Issue 2759 - rf_named_entity, rf_enum, rf_struct, rf_event do not fully list their methods The chapter is as little as 4 methods away from being a comprehensive listing of methods per class. It appears so close that I assumed it was comprehensive. The following omissions are not logical and the first one led me to assume there was no such thing as get_declaration() and to write roundabout code to get the information. - 30.3.1.3 rf_definition element (g) is the only place to find 'rf_named_entity.get_declaration(): rf_definition_element' It should also be added to 30.2.1.1 rf_named_entity. - 30.3.2.2 rf_enum_layer (b) is the only place to find 'rf_enum.get_layers(): list of rf_enum_layer' It should also be added to 30.2.6.3 rf_enum. - 30.3.2.3 rf_struct_layer (d) is the only place to find 'rf_struct.get_layers(): list of rf_struct_layer' It should also be added to 30.2.4.3 rf_struct. - 30.3.3.2 rf_event_layer (c) is the only place to find 'rf_event.get_layers(): list of rf_event_layer' It should also be added to 30.2.3.5 rf_event. Issue 2758 - Addition: dut_errorf() and dut_error() {action block} There's a slight problem with dut_errorf() and dut_error() {action-block}. dut_errorf() is in the keyword list, but is not defined at all in the rest of the e-reference manual (I searched through 6.1 documentation) - it isn't even in the index. dut_error() {action-block} is not defined either - the only mention of this that I have found is in the HTML documentation. If you take a look at the index tab, there is a "dut_error() action syntax" listed, but this takes you to the standard dut_error() description which is similar to what we have in the LRM. Specman might use these variants, but neither are actually defined for Specman in the reference manuals...... Both of these need a definition first before we can include them in the LRM - hence I have included Joe Hupcey on this e-mail. Joe - is there someone inside Cadence who could provide these definitions? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Darren Galpin Tel: +44 117 9528741 Infineon Technologies Fax: +44 117 9528777 Infineon House Darren.Galpin@infineon.com<mailto:Darren.Galpin@infineon.com> Great Western Court Hunts Ground Road Stoke Gifford Bristol, BS34 8HP, England. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Tue Jul 14 02:11:22 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 14 2009 - 02:11:24 PDT