[ibis-macro] Re: Spelling the BIRD 121.1 parameters
- From: "Muranyi, Arpad" <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: IBIS-ATM <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 15:37:02 +0000
Mike,
Now that I was writing my reply to Ken's comments, I realized
that the DLL_Path is really the path of the CWD, so it seems
that it would make sense to call it CWD_Path.
What do you think?
Arpad
==============================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike LaBonte [mailto:milabont@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 12:33 PM
To: Muranyi, Arpad; IBIS-ATM
Subject: Re: [ibis-macro] Re: Spelling the BIRD 121.1 parameters
Since we are talking about AMI parameters I thought the "AMI" prefix would
not be needed. It seems like an invitation to revisit all of the reserved
parameter names to see if they should have an "AMI" prefix, and we probably
should skip that.
Mike
On 7/6/11 11:42 AM, "Arpad Muranyi" <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I kind of like the "Model_Path" but I would add "AMI" to it,
> because we can have lots of different models in a design...
>
> How does "AMI_Model_Path" and "AMI_Model_ID" sound like?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Arpad
> =============================================================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike LaBonte [mailto:milabont@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 10:33 AM
> To: Muranyi, Arpad; IBIS-ATM
> Subject: Re: [ibis-macro] Spelling the BIRD 121.1 parameters
>
> I like the proposal to use underscores and leading uppercase.
>
> As far as the DLL_ID and DLL_Path parameters are concerned, I had proposed
> using either "Unique_ID" or "Instance_ID" instead of "DLL_ID", but I think
> we can do better.
>
> To defend "DLL" for just a moment, we have used the term pretty liberally
> amongst ourselves to refer to the executable model image, and there have not
> been complaints all along about it being platform specific. However, a DLL
> really is a DEFINITION of the executable model image, and if a model is used
> twice in a simulation there will be two unique instances of it. Furthermore
> the DLL is accompanied my IBS and AMI files, and maybe others that complete
> the model. The IBS file probably corresponds to multiple models, but the AMI
> file and maybe others may have a one-to-one correspondence with the DLL
> (which as Arpad points out may actually be .so or whatever). Anyway, I just
> think of them all as "the model files".
>
> Maybe it's the programmer in me, but I'm starting to like
> "Model_Instance_ID" and "Model_Path" for those parameters.
>
> Mike
>
> On 7/6/11 11:05 AM, "Arpad Muranyi" <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> There was a question about how the parameters should be
>> spelled in BIRD 121.1. I looked at the existing spec
>> to see how we spell out parameters and found the following:
>>
>> In the AMI section, we spell parameter names with underscore
>> and upper case letters:
>>
>> Init_Returns_Impulse,
>> GetWave_Exists,
>> Max_Init_Aggressors,
>> etc...
>>
>> Interestingly, in the legacy portion of the spec we do not
>> use upper case letters after the underscore for the subparameter
>> names:
>>
>> C_comp,
>> S_overshoot_high,
>> Cref_falling,
>> Vmeas_falling,
>> etc...
>>
>> On the other hand, the AMI function arguments are all spelled
>> lower case completely, except when the acronym AMI appears:
>>
>> impulse_matrix,
>> row_size,
>> AMI_parameters_in,
>> AMI_memory,
>> etc...
>>
>> However, the AMI functions use upper case letters after
>> the underscore:
>>
>> AMI_Init,
>> AMI_GetWave,
>> AMI_Close.
>>
>>
>> So, to be consistent, I would say we should spell the parameter
>> names in BIRD 121.1 with underscores and upper case letters
>> after the underscores:
>>
>> Supporting_Files,
>> DLL_Path,
>> DLL_ID (both letters of ID upper case because it is an acronym).
>>
>> I also wonder whether using "DLL" in these parameter names is
>> appropriate, since different operating systems use different
>> file extensions for these executable binary Algorithmic Models...
>>
>>
>> This brings up a question in my mind regarding the Editorial
>> Committee. Should we make these spelling rules more consistent
>> for the upcoming IBIS spec?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Arpad
>> =================================================================
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
>> IBIS Macro reflector: //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
>> To unsubscribe send an email:
>> To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: unsubscribe
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
> IBIS Macro reflector: //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
> To unsubscribe send an email:
> To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: unsubscribe
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
IBIS Macro reflector: //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
To unsubscribe send an email:
To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: unsubscribe
Other related posts:
