Re: Note on Rev

An end block statement would then solve this problem.

Or since this is not a block structured language, it is the blocks themselves
that are anomalous. To be consistent text blocks should be treated
as comments.

I am quite opposed to simple fixes like column one allignment. This
is a silly way to solve the real problem, which is that we are trying to
use keywords in places where they should be commented without using
comments.

"Muranyi, Arpad" wrote:

> Scott,
>
> But what if someone wants to mention a keyword inside comments,
> or the disclaimer, etc...?
>
> Arpad
> ================================================================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott McMorrow [mailto:scott@vasthorizons.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 9:55 AM
> To: Peters, Stephen
> Cc: apanella@molex.com; ibis
> Subject: Re: Note on Rev
>
> Stephen,
>
> I have the following suggestions to eliminate this problem:
>
> 1) Require that keywords do not appear in any text blocks. Where a keyword
> is defined to include the [keyword] syntax. This would
> be an unusual circumstance anyway. It is highly unlikely that in production
> models that a [keyword] would appear in a text block
> sections. These sorts of things generally only occur in examples and can be
> easily removed.
>
> 2) Require an [End Block] keyword for all sections with text blocks.
>
> The requirement that keywords begin in column 1 seems more onerous to me
> than either of these suggestions. I would "really" like to
> be able to use indented structure within all future models to facilitate
> better understandability. Also, I would really like to not
> have to deal with a stupid parser that spits out my files when somehow I
> managed to create a model that does not position a keyword
> in column 1.
>
> regards,
>
> scott
>
> --
> Scott McMorrow
> Principal Engineer
> SiQual, Signal Quality Engineering
> 18735 SW Boones Ferry Road
> Tualatin, OR 97062-3090
> (503) 885-1231
> http://www.siqual.com
>
> "Peters, Stephen" wrote:
>
> > Hi Scott:
> >
> > The reason for the column 1 requirement lies in the arbitrary length of
> > the [Notes] field. As IBIS is defined, (implicitly by the golden parser in
> > Ver 3.2, explicitly in IBIS-X), the [Notes] field ends when the next
> keyword
> > is encountered. However, a real life case arose in which a keyword was
> used
> > *within* the note. The parser encountered it, ended the [Notes] section,
> > and subsequently bombed on the remaining notes text. The fix was to
> > recognize [...] as keyword only when the opening bracket was in column 1.
> > As I mentioned, this rule was formalized in IBIS-X (which is where the
> > General Syntax Rules and Guidelines in the connector spec came from).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Stephen Peters
> > Intel Corp.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott McMorrow [mailto:scott@vasthorizons.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 12:21 PM
> > To: apanella@molex.com; ibis
> > Subject: Re: Note on Rev
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I see no reason why on page 3 of the document the following
> > is a requirement:
> >
> > 3) Keywords must be enclosed in square brackets, [ ] , and must start in
> > column 1
> > of the line.
> >
> > The column 1 requirement seems a bit antiquated to me.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > scott
> >
> > --
> > Scott McMorrow
> > Principal Engineer
> > SiQual, Signal Quality Engineering
> > 18735 SW Boones Ferry Road
> > Tualatin, OR 97062-3090
> > (503) 885-1231
> > http://www.siqual.com
> >
> > apanella@molex.com wrote:
> >
> > > <<File: icm0.pdf>>Good Catch Arpad...
> > >
> > > All... See attached... with correct revision number
> > >
> > > I am sending the doc again... see attached... I didn't think this
> > correction
> > > was worth a revision number.
> > >
> > > _gus
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: "Muranyi, Arpad" <arpad.muranyi@intel.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 1:35 PM
> > > To: apanella
> > > Subject: RE: 0.969 attached...
> > >
> > > The title page still shows rev 0.968...
> > >
> > > Arpad
> > > =======================================
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: apanella
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 1:16 PM
> > > To: '"Peters, Stephen" <stephen.peters@intel.com>'; '"Al Davis
> > > <aldavis@ieee.org>" <aldavis@ieee.org>'; '"Bob Ross
> > > <bob_ross@mentorg.com>" <bob_ross@mentorg.com>'; '"Chris Reid
> > > <chris_reid@mentorg.com>" <chris_reid@mentorg.com>'; '"DC Sessions
> > > <ibis@lumbercartel.com>" <ibis@lumbercartel.com>'; '"Gerald Bannert
> > > <gerald.bannert@icn.siemens.de>" <gerald.bannert@icn.siemens.de>';
> > > '"Greg Edlund <gedlund@us.ibm.com>" <gedlund@us.ibm.com>'; '"John Angulo
> > > <angulo@hyperlynx.com>" <angulo@hyperlynx.com>'; '"Lynne Green
> > > <lgreen@cadence.com>" <lgreen@cadence.com>'; '"Muranyi, Arpad"
> > > <arpad.muranyi@intel.com>'; '"Scott McMorrow <scott@vasthorizons.com>"
> > > <scott@vasthorizons.com>'; '"Steve Nolan <s-nolan1@ti.com>"
> > > <s-nolan1@ti.com>'
> > > Subject: RE: 0.969 attached...
> > >
> > > See attached...
> > >
> > > The major revision in the attached document is per the last
> teleconference
> > that
> > > I attended.
> > >
> > > Basically it revolves around making the subparameters in 968 more line
> an
> > > assigned variable as seen in IBISX
> > >
> > > This was done for both the sub parameters for [Begin Cn Model] and the
> > matrix
> > > section.
> > >
> > > The "matrix" portion probably needs more work.
> > >
> > > We can use this for review on Tuesday.
> > >
> > > _gus
> > >
> > >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > Name: ICM0.PDF
> > > ICM0.PDF Type: Acrobat (application/pdf)
> > > Encoding: base64

--
Scott McMorrow
Principal Engineer
SiQual, Signal Quality Engineering
18735 SW Boones Ferry Road
Tualatin, OR  97062-3090
(503) 885-1231
http://www.siqual.com