[sv-bc] mantis 1940

Shalom,

Let me see if I can explain the issue/question I have with this proposed 
change.  You state:

"But 'net types' refers to wire, trireg, etc. These are 'net kinds' or 
'resolution types', not 'data types'. In contrast to 1364, they have no 
size. Size is not relevant to them. Only data types have size. So 'net 
types' should not be mentioned here."

With this sentence in mind I can understand scrubbing "net" and "net 
type" for the text in 6.8 and 6.8.1 as noted in the changed text.  But 
now when I read the new text from the proposal it make the following 
appear to be illegal.

wire [15:0] data_bus;

Of course this is legal but then where is the section in the LRM that 
defines a bundle of wire's as a vector.  Section 6.6 is on Net 
declarations, 6.7 is on Variable declarations, and 6.8 is on Vector 
declarations.  If we remove the textural references to "net" and "net 
type" in section 6.8, then the only implication that we can have a 
declaration as noted above is in the example in section 6.8.  I think 
that we need to have some verbiage somewhere that defines vectors of 
wire (and other net types) similar to what you are putting in the new 
text in section 6.8.  Maybe another paragraph in section 6.8 or maybe 
another subsection in 6.8.  I think an additional paragraph would make 
sense.

Now the next question is, did I express myself clear enough here to 
communicate my concern?

-- 
==========================================================
Don Mills
mills@lcdm-eng.com
www.lcdm-eng.com
==========================================================



-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.