RE: [sv-bc] parameterized structures

I don't think they necessarily contradict each other. Especially when a
real user says he has a need for a certain enhancement, the WG should
listen.

Shalom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich, Dave [mailto:Dave_Rich@mentor.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:08 PM
> To: Bresticker, Shalom; Vreugdenhil, Gordon; Feldman, Yulik
> Cc: sv-bc@server.verilog.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] parameterized structures
> 
> I would like to see structures evolve into static synthesizable
classes
> (i.e. have methods and have inheritance, but it's a question of
> priorities. The time spent is not just the person writing the
proposal,
> but the whole committee's time in reviewing it and the editor's time
> putting it in the LRM, etc.
> 
> Sure it's a lot more fun adding enhancements, but we should be
> discussing Gord's name resolution issues and what to do with %m, etc.
to
> make progress in having a solid LRM.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org
[mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda-
> > stds.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
> > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 7:26 AM
> > To: Vreugdenhil, Gordon; Feldman, Yulik
> > Cc: sv-bc@server.verilog.org
> > Subject: RE: [sv-bc] parameterized structures
> >
> > If someone wants to invest his time in writing a proposal for a
useful
> > enhancement, I don't think we should reject it.
> >
> > > I don't think we should be in the space of making this
> > > kind of extension right now since there are too many
> > > other things to be looking at, but I don't think this
> > > would be a stretch at all.
> >
> > Shalom