RE: FW: [sv-bc] parameterized structures

What is the reason for 6.9 "Type compatibility"'s "The scope of a data
type identifier shall include the hierarchical instance scope. In other
words, each instance with a user-defined type declared inside the
instance creates a unique type."? 

What would happen if the "scope of a data type" would include only the
scope hierarchy inside the innermost instantiated entity
(module/interface/program/etc.) and would ignore the path leading to the
instance itself? Won't the life be just easier for everyone? 

--Yulik.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org
[mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org] On Behalf Of Brad Pierce
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:04 AM
To: sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org
Subject: Re: FW: [sv-bc] parameterized structures

Some of theses issues were resolved by

     http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=725

See also 

     http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-ec/hm/2542.html
     http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-ec/hm/2557.html

-- Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@eda-stds.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda-stds.org] On
Behalf Of Gordon Vreugdenhil
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 4:52 PM
To: Greg Jaxon
Cc: sv-bc@verilog.org
Subject: Re: FW: [sv-bc] parameterized structures



Greg Jaxon wrote:

> Gordon Vreugdenhil wrote:
> 
>> Greg,
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand the issue here.
>>
>> Let's stick with the process/scope case for a moment.
>>
>>   module top;
>>     class C #(int p = 1);
>>        static int x;
>>     endclass
>>
>>     always @(clk) begin
>>         C#(2) c_obj = new;
>>         c_obj.x++;
>>     end
>>
>>     always @(clk) begin
>>         C#(2) c_obj = new;
>>         c_obj.x++;
>>     end
>>   endmodule
>>
>>
>> Are we in agreement that there is only one "x" here and that
>> it is the one that is the member of the specialized type C#(2)?
> 
> 
> That is also what I'd like to see the LRM specify.  However, I will
> note that the generic class has been declared in two different scopes,
> neither of which is in a package context, so according the quote (see 
> below)
> I might expect them to be different types.


I don't see this at all.  It is clear that each C#(2) is
a *specialization*.  There is only one declaration of the
parameterized class C -- the one in top.  C#(2) isn't
a *declaration* of a class type at all; it is a specialization.

Gord.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Vreugdenhil                                503-685-0808
Model Technology (Mentor Graphics)                gordonv@model.com