Re: Email Ballot due Monday June 18th

I would disagree with the new wording.

Right now, the first sentence doesn't say that *only*
non-instance binds to a target with an ambiguous
name are illegal -- it says that if the design has ANY
ambiguous names then non-instance binding is
illegal. That is silly -- if "my_cpu" is ambiguous
but "my_bus" is not, it should be valid to use
non-instance binding on "my_bus".

The prior wording let me make that assumption;
the newer wording is a bit less definite. I'd prefer:

     It shall be an error to use noninstance-based binding
     for a given target if the design contains more than one
     module, program, or interface with the target name.

In addition, the new second sentence is;
     In such cases, instance-based binding
     syntax can be used to disambiguate between the
     multiple the targets with the same name.

But due to the "in such cases", "the targets" here could
be read to be "the targets of the illegal binding" which
implies an instance like naming for library based modules.
I don't think that is the intent. How about:

     In such cases, instance-based binding
     syntax can be used to target individual instances
     of the design elements with the ambiguous name.

Gord.

On 6/16/2012 11:16 AM, Brad Pierce wrote:
>
> Hi Françoise and Mark,
>
> I uploaded revised proposals for 4126 and 4145.
>
> http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=4126
>
> http://www.eda-twiki.org/svdb/view.php?id=4145
>
> -- Brad
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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.