Subject: Re: Proposal Ben_P2: Numeric_Unsigned,
From: Rob Anderson (rob@reawebtech.com)
Date: Tue Oct 08 2002 - 08:02:24 PDT
David Bishop wrote:
> Jim Lewis wrote:
>
>>We did not seem to reach consensus on the last proposal, so
>>let me give this a shot. This one has no comparison functions
>>and includes functions for both std_logic_vector and
>>std_ulogic_vector.
>>
>
> I agree we need to support both.
>
>
>><BEN_P2>
>>I would like to propose that we support an additional package
>>named Numeric_Unsigned. This package will treat both std_logic_vector
>>and std_ulogic_vector as unsigned and provide numeric operations
>>for these types.
>>
>
> The problem here is that MTI already has a package by that name
> "numeric_unsigned". Unless we match the functions exactly, we can
> cause problems with existing code. The MTI package only supports
> "std_logic_vector", but has shift operations in it (ours does not).
>
> Why not call our packages "numeric_std_unsigned" so as not to
> conflict?
That sounds confusing, like we took out the "SIGNED" operators.
How about UNSIGNED_STD_LOGIC or UNSIGNED_1164
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Oct 08 2002 - 08:01:08 PDT