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

I also do not see that "export p2::*;"

in p3 does anything since p2 does not appear in an import statement.

 

Shalom

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Brad Pierce
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 8:25 AM
To: sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Re: Package export proposal

 

Gord,

 

Attached is a slightly modified version of your proposal, mostly
bolding, to use if/as you wish.

 

By the way, the following comment in package p3 didn't seem right to me
--

 

      p1::x and q are made available from p2

 

-- Brad

 

________________________________

From: Vreugdenhil, Gordon [mailto:gordon_vreugdenhil@mentor.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 10:11 PM
To: Brad Pierce; sv-bc@eda-stds.org
Cc: Vreugdenhil, Gordon
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Re: Package export proposal

 

If someone is willing to suggest actual wording in
terms of the semantics, I could incorporate these.

I am not willing to just drop in "local" due to
concerns I've raised before.  Issues related to
the interaction of "local" with enclosed imports
must be resolved.  I think that this should wait
until we have consensus on the actual form of export
and any suggested import changes before dealing
with local.  I strongly support the introduction
of local but don't think it can just be added without
consideration of various issues.  I am not willing
to spend the time on that until we have an agreed
on proposal for import and export.

Dropping in the unqualified import/export (no ::),
has a larger non-local impact in other sections of
the LRM.  I'd prefer to leave that as a separate
item so that someone else can do that part.  Again,
if someone wants to provide the specific change,
I'd be willing to incorporate that.

Gord.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org on behalf of Brad Pierce
Sent: Fri 9/15/2006 9:52 PM
To: sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Re: Package export proposal

Gord's most recent version is attached.

Some important suggestions that have been made so far are --

Allow the 'local' qualifier in package declarations

     http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-bc/hm/5069.html

Allow the :: suffix to be omitted from package imports and exports

     http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-bc/hm/5096.html

Typographical and wordsmithing issues can be fixed up later.

-- Brad


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Gordon Vreugdenhil
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 3:17 PM
To: Gordon Vreugdenhil
Cc: SV_BC List; SV_EC List; sv-ac@verilog.org
Subject: [sv-bc] Re: Package export proposal

I just caught a minor BNF bug in the proposal -- I missed the vertical
bar when I added the "export *::*;" rule.  I fixed the typo and uploaded
the modified version.

Gord.


Gordon Vreugdenhil wrote:

> I've uploaded an initial cut at the export proposal and attached it to

> Mantis 1323 as a placeholder.
>    http://www.verilog.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001323
> See the attached package_exports.htm.
>
> I think that I've managed to incorporate all the changes suggested
> from within the sub-group.  If anyone sees errors or omissions, please

> let me know.
>
> I have not yet included the "local" declaration change since I need to

> hear some feedback as to whether there need to be semantic
> restrictions on the general case.
>
> Gord.

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