RE: [sv-bc] Please respond with your #1 SV-BC enhancement priority (due by end of January)

Mantis 2028 and maybe 1512.

Shalom

________________________________
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Greg Jaxon
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 8:51 PM
To: sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Please respond with your #1 SV-BC enhancement priority (due by end of January)

I apologize for not knowing the Mantis # for this issue.
My opinion is not a Synopsys position - JMHO.

Instance-specific type identities for the non-class (i.e. purely structural) types was a serious mistake.
Specialization-specific identities suffice to make these types safe and far more portable.

Relating this to Mr. Williams' notion of "usage levels", I'd observe that synthesis systems
(which so far lack dynamic, classed, objects) only implement specialization-specific
type identities. If SV is ever to be about design reuse, we need a way to
instantiate interchangeable parts of a common structural type. This cannot be done
if the types themselves are unique to each instance in which they occur.

Greg

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.