RE: [sv-bc] Proposal to make it easier to use packages with port declarations

SV-BC,

I agree with Guillermo that section 18.2 doesn't contain
the notion that imports are retroactive to any item in
the module's scope. If it could be gleaned that items
after the module header are affected by an import statement,
why not the items in the header as well? On the contrary,
it seems that all examples show import statements being made
before the use of imported items. However, nothing is stated
about that being a requirement for using imported items.

If something must be done about Stu's proposal, then
so far it looks like Brad's proposal is the best bet.
It too should be studied and discussed further.

Perhaps we also need an erratum to clarify that any items
imported from a package must be preceded by an appropriate
import statement in an appropriate scope? In the area of
importing items from packages, I believe declaration
before use is very important.

Regards,
Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On
> Behalf Of Brad Pierce
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 3:24 PM
> To: sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Proposal to make it easier to use
> packages with port declarations
>
> Arturo,
>
> Your suggestion makes good sense for full module declarations, but
> I think it might still have some problems with respect to the extern
> modules syntax of Section 18.7. It's worth exploring further though.
>
> >the language of the LRM currently supports the notion that
> >an import statement affects declarations in the scope that
> contains the
> >import, regardless of the relative order of the declarations
> and imports
> >statements (I believe the end of Section 18.2 supports this notion).
>
> -- Brad
>
>
>
Received on Wed Dec 1 21:41:11 2004