[ibis-editorial] Re: Another editorial(?) problem in the spec

From: "Bob Ross" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <mlabonte@xxxxxxxxxx>, <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>, <ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:11:23 -0700

Mike and Arpad,

The first column entries are actual values, whereas the sub-parameter
designation is for actual words, whether they are column headings (in [Pin]
or in lines for [Pin Numbers[

So, by our convention, pin_name is not a sub-parameter, and no change is
needed.

I have to check later regarding matching.

Bob

From: ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike LaBonte
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 1:07 PM
To: Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx; ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-editorial] Re: Another editorial(?) problem in the spec

We would then have the same problem for [Pin], and maybe others:

Keyword: [Pin]

Required: Yes

Description: Associates the component's I/O models to its various external
pin names and signal names.

Sub-Params: signal_name, model_name, R_pin, L_pin, C_pin

I agree all columns should be listed as sub-params, and maybe the first
column should be based on the keyword in lowercase, ei. 'pin' or
'pin_number'. But this sounds like a BIRD to me, with some research
required.

Mike

From: ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 3:05 PM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-editorial] Another editorial(?) problem in the spec

Hello Everyone,

I think I found another issue in the spec that could/should be addressed by
the

editorial group, possibly without having to write a BIBRD.

This is about the list of subparameters for the [Pin Numbers] keyword.  Note
that

it does NOT list the subparameter that appears in its first column, the pin
name,

it only lists Len, L, R, C, Fork, Endfork.  I think that is an omission
which we

should fix, after all, the first column is also a subparameter, correct?

See pg. 142:

The wording is also a little vague, because the "package pins" term is
really not defined.

The only thing that I see here that suggests that these pin names must match
the pin names

listed in the [Pin] keyword is:  "but it is not required to include all of
the pins listed

pin the [Pin] keyword", but this doesn't really state it clearly that the
pin names which

ARE present must match the names in the [Pin] keyword, which is what I
thought is the rule.

Bob, could you please confirm that the parser expects the pin names under
[Pin Numbers] to

match the pin names under [Pin]?

Do you think we can fix this without a BIRD?

Thanks,

Arpad

============================================================================
================

References:
- [ibis-editorial] Another editorial(?) problem in the spec
  - From: Muranyi, Arpad
- [ibis-editorial] Re: Another editorial(?) problem in the spec
  - From: Mike LaBonte

[ibis-editorial] Re: Another editorial(?) problem in the spec

Other related posts: