Subject: RE: Updated Implicit Ports Proposal
From: Tom Fitzpatrick (fitz@co-design.com)
Date: Fri Apr 12 2002 - 05:52:34 PDT
Hi Kevin,
Please explain what you mean by "a mechanism for blocking inappropriate
connection (e.g. 'local' preceding non-exportable signal delarations)".
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I believe the way to block inappropriate
connection is simply not to put the signal in the port list. I seem to
recall a previous email from you about "local", but I can't find it.
Thanks,
-Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vlog-pp@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-vlog-pp@server.eda.org]On
Behalf Of Kevin Cameron
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 8:53 PM
To: Clifford E. Cummings
Cc: vlog-pp@server.eda.org
Subject: Re: Updated Implicit Ports Proposal
"Clifford E. Cummings" wrote:
This email message contains proposals to replace section 12.7 in its
entirety and some changes to the interface section.
Please be ready to vote on this by Monday.
Regards - Cliff
Couple of things:
1. The .<name> syntax isn't really "implicit" as it's just shorthand for
.<name>(<name>) where
the name is the same, which is (IMO) explicit. Can we drop "implicit"?
2. I'm not that keen on .* without module/interface prototyping and a
mechanism for blocking
inappropriate connection (e.g. 'local' preceding non-exportable signal
delarations). So I'm
probably voting "no" until that happens.
Kev.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Apr 12 2002 - 05:53:47 PDT