RE: [sv-bc] E-mail Vote: Respond by Monday, May 11, 2009 8am PDT

Gord,

The NO vote was needed to ensure that the item would be discussed in our
conference call today.  It is the combination of "if" and "is" that I feel
allows tools to arbitrarily choose how to resolve the :: operator.  To me
the sentence does not require a tool to attempt to resolve :: in a specific
order.  It is only saying that should the tool have arbitrarily chosen to
attempt the normal scope resolution rule first, then that has priority over
a package resolution.  IMHO, changing "is" to "can be" says a tool MUST try
to resolve :: using the normal scope resolution rule before it can attempt
any other resolution.

My bigger concern is that the wording of the proposal leads me to believe
that I cannot specify a specific package and have it take priority over a
declaration in $unit.

Stu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Sutherland
stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
(503) 692-0898


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon Vreugdenhil [mailto:gordonv@model.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 8:23 AM
> To: stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
> Cc: sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-bc] E-mail Vote: Respond by Monday, May 11, 2009 8am PDT
> 
> Stu,
> 
> I certainly hope the "is" versus "can be" didn't cause you to
> vote no.  This is our last chance to pass items before the
> deadline and that part could have easily been dealt with as
> a friendly editorial suggestion.  Clearly no one intends "is"
> to permit arbitrary selection of other rules.
> 
> $unit always has fallen under normal scope resolution rules.
> I addressed that in my initial comments in:
>      http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/9366.html
> See in particular the reference to 26.3.
> 
> Gord.
> 
> Stuart Sutherland wrote:
> [...]
> 
> >> SVDB 2611 ___Yes   _X_No
> >> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2611
> >
> > I do not like the proposed wording of the change.  Does "If the prefix
name
> > is resolved using the normal scope resolution rules,..." mean that a
tool
> > can arbitrarily chose whether to follow the normal scope resolution
rules?
> > Should "is" be replaced with "can be"?
> >
> > Also, do declarations in $unit fall under "normal scope resolution
rules",
> > and therefore take priority of an explicit reference to a package with
this
> > proposed change?
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.