Stuart Sutherland wrote: > Gord, > [...] > > 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 $unit. That is correct. There is no way to do that now and anything that would allow that would be a new mechanism. It is certainly too late to do that. So we either pass this clarifying change or we leave things ambiguous. The latter would be a bad result since, as Greg Jaxon has indicated, there is already divergence in implementations. Greg's comments certainly don't address your concern; the only way in which I could see resolving your concern is to have either a "directive prefix" ($package::package_name::...) or a library mechanism (work.package_name::...). Both of those (and likely any other approach) would elicit substantial discussion and are well outside the scope of what we can do. Gord. > > 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 > > -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.Received on Mon May 11 09:04:14 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 11 2009 - 09:04:29 PDT