Subject: [sv-ec] Built-in Package proposal
From: David W. Smith (David.Smith@synopsys.com)
Date: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 23:44:58 PST
Greetings,
Well, there seems to be a large agreement that the built-in package needs to
be named. So, I have updated the proposal (after discussions with Arturo),
included it in this email, and posted it to the site.
A couple of comments:
1. There are still some differences between the built-in package and a
regular package. The differences are the automatic import into the
compilation-unit scope (as indicated in the document) and the fact that the
user cannot extend the built-in package (not user definable).
2. Including the built-in package in the same section as built-in
methods seems to make sense.
3. If an additional built-in package (besides std) is required in the
future then this section can be updated (along with the appendix listing the
contents of the package(s)) to include the new built-in package name and
description.
With these changes I hope we have agreement on the contents and can approve
this. Once this is approved then we will have to go back to the couple of
sections where we need to change :: to std::.
Regards
David
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Nov 23 2003 - 23:46:51 PST