Re: FW: [sv-bc] parameterized structures

Feldman, Yulik wrote:
> ... say that for the two given types to be compatible, they 
> have to have all their parameters resolved to the same value (whatever 
> the exact definition is) and they have to be defined (is they are 
> user-defined) in the same scope with the same name, but considering the 
> innermost entity only, and ignoring the exact instantiation path of that 
> entity. Requiring the same instantiation path for the type compatibility 
> seems to be somewhat artificial limitation, unless I miss something.

I agree that the "instantiation path" should not be part of a type's identity.
I may also be missing something about simulation semantics, but in synthesis
we don't have a notion of "instantiation path".  In fact, many distinct
reference sites can instantiate the *same* synthesized module.  The identity
and interchangeability of the types made by that instantiation could be
key to the interoperation of those reference sites.

Greg Jaxon