Re: [sv-bc] FW: wildcard import name resolution

Greg Jaxon wrote:
[...]

>> Although I have to still look at some issues, I currently
>> think that Francoise's proposal is "stronger" in the sense
>> that the eager approach will fail in some situations that
>> Francoise's will not while the reverse is not true.  The
>> approach you proposed is weaker -- some things will not
>> resolve that would have before.  That is not acceptable to me.
> 
> I can sympathize with that analysis.
> Does your proposal treat an explicit import of the function
> name the way it would treat a task or function declaration?
> I.e.: can a called name bind to an explicit import which
> occurs after the first (function context) use?   This would
> arise when the declaration moves into a package body.

Francoise's proposal covers this since when considering a tf
name, you must first consider *all* of the locally visible names
in the scope before looking at wildcards.

    module m;
      initial t();
      import pkg::t;   // t becomes locally visible here

      // any later declaration of t is an error
    endmodule

Given this example, Francoise's approach is unambiguous in
that it would resolve "t" to pkg::t.

In my original "eager" proposal, I think that you could
argue that "t()" would NOT resolve to pkg::t since
imported names are not valid for hierarchical reference
and my proposal requires hierarchical resolution of "t".


Given this scenario, Francoise's proposal is probably
closer to what users would expect.


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


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