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

Bresticker, Shalom wrote:

> So is the idea of compilation unit scope declarations bad?

Personal opionion here --

"Yes".

Particularly if we have package imports that can be associated
with modules prior to port/param declarations, I don't really
like unit scope.  The history of $unit is rather torturous and
with some of the other issues under discussion, I wouldn't at all mind
if $unit went away.  Having $unit go away makes dependency analysis
and clean separate compilation much more reasonable and imposes
very little burden to the user in real scenarios.

Gord.

> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Vreugdenhil                                503-685-0808
Model Technology (Mentor Graphics)                gordonv@model.com