In column 5, I agree that the first import is not an error. However, I think that the statement, "It shall be illegal to import an identifier defined in the importing scope," is misleading because c is not really defined in the importing scope, it is defined in the imported scope and becomes visible in the importing scope *as though* it were defined in the importing scope. My proposed text for column 5, "It is illegal to import the same identifier from different packages," is based on the LRM text, "An explicit import shall be illegal if the imported identifier is declared in the same scope or explicitly imported from another package." For column 3, we essentially agree, except that I do not think that "shall be" is appropriate because this is just an example illustrating the text I quoted above. So "is" is appropriate here. Shalom > > SVDB 1217 ___Yes __[DR] X_No > > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1217 > [DR] I believe the correct text for the two error messages > should be "It shall be illegal to import an identifier > defined in the importing scope." In column 5, the first > import is not an error. The second import is an error because > the identifier is already defined. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Fri Sep 7 18:53:28 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 07 2007 - 18:54:10 PDT