On Dec 16, 2005, at 17:59 , Andrew Johnson wrote:
these are subtly different. If a port macro is not resolved then it
shouldn't be an error, I believe it should be treated as if it never
existed in the first place.
I strongly disagree. If a parent diagram is trying to use
information from a port that a template it's expanding doesn't
actually define, then the parent diagram is wrong and this should
cause an error at instantiation time.
I think the naming of these 'text' or 'port' macros isn't 100% clear.
When we compare this to circuit diagrams
or IC pinouts, there are 'input' and 'output' ports.
For example, an IC that offers a 4 bit addition circuit
might have inputs for the power, clock, 2 x 4 input bits,
and outputs for the 4 output bits and 'carry'.
You have to connect the input bits to make the IC
work in any useful way.
You probably also want to connect something to the
4 output bits, but the circuit would still work
if you ignore some outputs.
And in quite a few cases you'll completely ignore
the 'carry' output.
So in this view of 'input' and 'output' ports
of a circuit, I would understand why the 'port macros'
(= ouput ports) can remain open-ended,
while 'text macros' (=input ports) better be resolved.
-Kay
- References:
- VDCT expand and template constructs Rees, NP (Nick)
- Re: VDCT expand and template constructs Andrew Johnson
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: VDCT expand and template constructs Benjamin Franksen
- Next:
Re: Ethernet/IP: writing zero to soft tags Kay-Uwe Kasemir
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
<2005>
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
RE: VDCT expand and template constructs Rees, NP (Nick)
- Next:
Re: Ethernet/IP: writing zero to soft tags Kay-Uwe Kasemir
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
<2005>
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|