Subject: Re: Request Clarification: Q'INTEG'DOT and Q'DOT'INTEG
From: Craig Winters (cwinters@cadence.com)
Date: Fri Jun 21 2002 - 07:44:02 PDT
Juergen,
Thank you for your input on this question. While I agree that it is
difficult to stretch the LRM to make Q'DOT a static name, I must still
accept that it is static for these reasons.
Section 6.1 on its face seems to contradict that. However the thread
in this mailing list from Kaushik Biswas, dated Mar 7, 2000 raised this
same question and the conclusion was that Q'DOT, etc. are static names
based partly on the definition of static name in appendix 'B' on page 264.
Further, we have examples throughout the literature of cascaded
attributes, prominently Q'DOT'DOT in the tutorial and many example
models found on the web. Finally, in the equivalent code for Q'SLEW on
page 214 of the LRM itself we have Q'DOT'ABOVE(E), which strongly
indicates that Q'DOT is a static name.
If we allow that Q'DOT is a static name, then Q'DOT'INTEG is a legal
name and the issue of what to do about it remains open.
Craig
Juergen Pfitzenmaier wrote:
>Hello,
>in my opinion this point is already made clear in the LRM. From LRM 14.1 we
>have the following:
> The prefix of Q'DOT and Q'INTEG is any quantity denoted by the static name Q.
>
>A static name is according to LRM 6.1 only one of the following
> - The name is a simple name or selected name ....
> - The name is an indexed name ...
> - The name is a slice name ...
>
>An attribute name is therefore not a static name and Q'DOT'INTEG and Q'INTEG'DOT
>are both not legal VHDL-AMS.
>
>I hope this is helpful.
>
>Jürgen Pfitzenmaier
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Jun 21 2002 - 08:05:29 PDT