Subject: Re: std_logic_1164: CP-010 and numeric_std:Rob_P1
From: Rob Anderson (rob@reawebtech.com)
Date: Fri Dec 06 2002 - 23:17:42 PST
What makes the most sense to the user?
The LRM says: "A type is characterized by a set of values and a set
of operations"
So, Functions must be kept with their type definitions. Or
else the types, functions would be context dependent, a challenge to
verification.
Another topic:
We should try to alleviate the type conversions.
Possibly we should promote using signed and unsigned as ports,
instead of just std_logic[_vector], because there are benefits
to type checks at the structural level.
So, perhaps 1164 should rephrase the port interface
recommendation to include types in other IEEE packages,
provided they are closely related to std_logic_vector or
std_logic.
It would help.
Jim Lewis wrote:
> CP-010 Analyzed Add match functions like numeric_std.std_match
> http://www.eda.org/vhdl-std-logic/proposals/CP-010-match-functions.txt
>
> In numeric_std, it was proposed in proposal Rob_P1/P2
> (http://www.eda.org/vhdlsynth/pilot/hm/0026.html), that
> the std_match functions for std_ulogic, std_logic_vector, and
> std_ulogic_vector be moved to std_logic_1164
>
> This would satisify CP-010 and Rob_P2. Is this a move that
> everyone would support? Otherwise, CP-010 proposes adding a match
> function to std_logic_1164.
> This means that we should add a
> match function to numeric_std. There is more meaning to a
> function when it is globally used
Functions should be inherited, agreed. But they need the
std_match functions we had, and we don't need duplicates.
>
> Cheers,
> Jim
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Dec 06 2002 - 23:11:20 PST