Re: [sv-bc] Re: Package export proposal

Gordon Vreugdenhil wrote:

> I think that it would be a bad idea to have "export pkg::*;" be
> an implied import.

As I understand it, the product in question implements import pkg::*
as wildcard import with implied export.  So I thought that switching
the keyword was the obvious resolution of this syntax collision.

If export pkg::* also exported unused candidates, I'd agree this
is a bad idea.  But that is not the definition I've heard proposed.

I suppose you mean that it would be a bad idea because it gives
end users a way to say "export everything I import from pkg".
I don't see the problem, since the package author is still in
charge of what he actually exports, and thanks to having /both/
import and export variations, he has far better control than in
either product currently in service.

On the contrary, I think it is a bad idea to have a new error
possibility in the export command: "Attempt to export '%s' which
is not visible via a prior import statement".  Consider
that to recover from this error, most users would just copy the
export statement and change "ex" to "im".  Might as well
just anticipate their recovery and cause the import.  If the
import would cause an error, it will still be reported.
I can't think of how it could cause a change in behavior.

Greg