Re: IBIS BIRD64.3 - Alternate Package Models

Matthew:

In BIRD64.3 comments have no special meaning.

As I understand it, the basis of your suggestion is to
prohibit spaces in package names if they are to be used
with [Alternate Package Models]. That way the second
and subsequent strings can be interpreted as the description
in a similar manner as in [Model Selector].

I agree that this would be a practical limitation to bring
the package model selection operation closer to [Model
Selector]. However, at this time, I do not favor making
this change over what is currently proposed.

The only potential issues remaining are just syntax
details and preferences. All of the suggestions appear
to support the same functionality.

Bob Ross
Mentor Graphics

Matthew Flora wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> I am a bit concerned about giving comments special meaning. If we want to
> allow a description to follow each entry in the package model list, then let's
> define a syntax.
>
> I am perfectly happy for the [Alternate Package Model] (or whatever it ends up
> being called) to have different syntax rules that [Package Model]. My point
> is that you can simply disallow spaces in the package model names under this
> keyword and then say that anything following the name is an optional
> description that may be shown to the user. This would be less confusion if we
> treat the [Alternate Package Model] as a keyword that works independent from
> the [Package Model] keyword. In other words, a [Component] might be allowed
> one of the two keywords, but not both. Don't worry too much about EDA tools
> not supporting models with the new keyword, we already took that plunge when
> many of the 3.0 keywords were added (e.g EBD).
>
> Regards,
> Matthew Flora
> Innoveda
>
 
Received on Fri Nov 3 14:03:45 2000