RE: [sv-bc] Query related with the visibility of enum member.

>I'm wondering how you've come to the conclusion that anonymous types
>are worthless.

I came to no such conclusion.

>Of course, if I've created an anonymous type, I'm wiling to live
>with consequences such as restricted or no access.

You may be, but not everyone is. Items in the RTL are referred to from outside the RTL, for example, during debugging, so implementers are forced to establish a cross-tool convention for inventing names for anonymous things. How to do this was settled by the LRM for anonymous generate blocks, although hardly in a way I would consider satisfying, and remains open for items declared in anonymous sequential blocks.

-- Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: Kaiming Ho [mailto:kaiming.ho@iis.fraunhofer.de]
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 1:09 PM
To: Brad Pierce
Cc: Greg Jaxon; Rich, Dave; Dhiraj Kumar Prasad; sv-bc@server.eda.org; Surya Pratik Saha
Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Query related with the visibility of enum member.

Hi Brad:
   I'm wondering how you've come to the conclusion that anonymous types
are worthless. I for one find not having to 'invent a name' (when I
can get away with it) a good thing. Being not too imaginative
sometimes, "foo", "bar", "x" and "tmp" get used often, and the
potential for naming conflicts comes into play.
   Of course, if I've created an anonymous type, I'm wiling to live
with consequences such as restricted or no access.

regards,
kaiming

Brad Pierce schrieb:
> Greg,
>
> I don't see the need for anonymous types in SV. Is there one? More
> generally, we seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on anonymous
> generate blocks, anonymous sequential blocks containing declarations,
> anonymous types. Is there any advantage to these besides not needing to
> invent a name?
>
> Under the assumption that, because of "legacy", we couldn't simply
> forbid anonymous types, even if they were worthless, I'm with you until
> the concluding paragraph

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.