[sv-bc] Ballot review issue 285

Hi, all,

        I asked for clarification on issue 285.  The following is the response from the entity:



>I think we messed up with the section number. The Clause/Subclause
>should be read as 19.9 instead of 18.9. We got a couple of D4's
>and D3's and we lost track of which one was which.
>
>As far as the comment:
>
>Section 19.9 talks how port expressions and port identifiers can be
>connected to an expression within a module. The LRM (page 287 D4) says,
>"The self-determined type of the port expression becomes the type for
>the port". Based on that we are assuming that port identifiers cannot
>have independent data types associated with them. Is that correct ??
>
>We think a user might find it beneficial to to allow types on port
>identifiers. Dissimilar (but cast compatible) types on port identifier
>and the port expression can be used as an assignment (and casting) that
>is transparent that can be changed on an instance by instance basis.
>
>I hope it is more clear now and my apologies for the messed up section
>numbers.