RE: [sv-bc] Interfaces in packages

Interfaces, along with modules and programs have their own global
namespace, so what purpose does putting them in a package serve?

 

Packages were intended to contain constructs which exist in a local
namespace, and generally need to be declared before used.

 

But probably the most significant restriction about packages is that
they go through compilation without needing any elaboration. That is why
generate statements are not allowed in a package either 

 

Dave

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Brad Pierce
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 8:48 AM
To: sv-bc@server.eda.org
Subject: [sv-bc] Interfaces in packages

 

Users are expecting packages to contain interface declarations, and are
surprised when told that the LRM disallows that.

 

Conceptually, users seem to lump interface declarations together with
typedefs and class declarations, perhaps because an interface-type port
declaration can specify the name of an interface in place of the generic
'interface' keyword.  (However, unlike with classes, a particular
specialization of the interface cannot be specified in a port
declaration.)

 

Why does the LRM disallow interface declarations in packages?  If
there's not some serious principle forcing this restriction, user demand
indicates that the restriction should be lifted.

 

-- Brad