Subject: Re: package update.
From: David Bishop (david.bishop@kodak.com)
Date: Thu Oct 03 2002 - 06:25:28 PDT
> Please note that I am not posting to vhdlsynth, but to
> vhdlsynth-pilot. David please let me know when you update the
> package and I will announce to VHDLSYNTH.
>
> Attached is a WIP version of numeric_std.vhd that David should put on
> the WEB site as the "UPDATED VERSION". I altered the file heading to
> remove culpability and list the changes.
Done. The "updated version" which was on the web page was the oringinal.
> We proposed a while ago to put the non-numerical subprograms in a
> separate file, so we have logic_reduction_operators in a file
> called reduce_ops.pkg.
>
> But now I am having doubts about that plan because we will also
> have "standard_unsigned", so we are dealing with too many
> different types. Should we put the reduce_ops in numeric_std?
I think that these belong in "numeric_std". The fewer packes the
better. We already have:
ieee.numeric_std.all;
ieee.numeric_bit.all;
ieee.numeric_std_textio.all; -- Proposed name
ieee.numeric_std_unsigned.all; -- Proposed name
Not to mention the floating point stuff.
Another point for discussion (on the pilot sig).
Do we want to name the new package "numeric_std"? What do we do about
forward compatability? If somebody write something to the new standard
and it doesn't compile, how do they know they don't have the correct version
of the package? We could change the name of the packages for the updates,
then there would be a definate demarkation.
David W. Bishop dbishop@vhdl.org All standard disclaimers apply.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Oct 03 2002 - 06:25:44 PDT