I agree that type equivalence is required.
My argument is from 11.2.2:
"11.2.2 Aggregate expressions
Unpacked structure and array data objects, as well as unpacked structure and array constructors, can all be used as aggregate expressions. A multi-element slice of an unpacked array can also be used as an aggregate expression.
Aggregate expressions can be copied in an assignment, through a port, or as an argument to a subroutine.
Aggregate expressions can also be compared with equality or inequality operators.
If the two operands of a comparison operator are aggregate expressions, they shall be of equivalent type as defined in 6.22.2. Assignment compatibility of aggregate expressions is defined in 6.22.3 and, for arrays, in 7.6."
Shalom
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Nov 25 02:19:10 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 25 2010 - 02:22:30 PST