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

So is the idea of compilation unit scope declarations bad?

Shalom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org]
On
> Behalf Of Brad Pierce
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:39 PM
> To: sv-bc@server.eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Proposal to make it easier to use packages with
> port declarations
> 
> Just as I would like my functions to be pure (instead of referring to
> global variables), I would like my module declarations to be as
> insensitive to context as possible.
> 
> -- Brad
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Bresticker, Shalom
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 12:10 AM
> To: sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Proposal to make it easier to use packages with
> port declarations
> 
> One thing is still not clear to me.
> 
> I understood that importing the package into the compilation unit
scope
> would work, except that some people don't like that idea.
> 
> My question is, once the concept of compilation unit scopes has been
> accepted and is part of the standard, why continue by assuming or
> desiring that it not be used?
> 
> Thanks,
> Shalom