Subject: Re: package update.
From: David Bishop (david.bishop@kodak.com)
Date: Thu Oct 03 2002 - 08:08:57 PDT
"Paul J. Menchini" wrote:
>
> Jim Lewis wrote:
>
> > Are you thinking of appending a year code: numeric_std_2002 ?
>
> > I think this is a good idea as it helps with portability of old code.
>
> I would not support a change to the name of the package in the absence
> of factors that would break old code. Specifically, if none of the
> following statements are true
>
> * features are removed
>
> * the semantics of existing features are changed in a non-upward
> compatible fashion
>
> I would not change the name. Otherwise, we'll break old code for no
> reason. (In the absence of a name change, unless one of the above
> statements were true, old code would exhibit no changes in behavior.)
That being the case, we should place another constraint on ourselves:
Do not change the functonality of the current packages, and do not add
functionality which would necessitate legacy code to be changed.
We should run the old test suite aginst the new code when we are done
to verify this. Note that I have a copy of that verification code sitting
in a subdirectory of mine just in case.
-- David W. Bishop dbishop@vhdl.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Oct 03 2002 - 08:09:13 PDT