The ballot issue suggests that hierarchical references should be allowed in compilation units. I am a bit concerned about allowing this since, as with packages, there is no notion of a context location. I might be willing to consider compilation unit based hierarchical references if it was clear that all such references are either required to be prefixed by $root or are implicitly prefixed in that way. That might conflict with "local" hierarchical references that vendors might already support (i.e. references in a task/function to a block/scope within the task/function). I think that we would need to explicitly account for this in the upwards name resolution rules which currently all assume an instance context. BTW, I disagree with the assertion that a compilation unit is associated with a specific design or even a file. Compilation units *may* be associated with a specific file but due to includes and the definition of when a compilation unit ends (at declaration boundaries) such an association is tenuous at best. In general, with separate compilation, any particular (non-package) design element may have some associated compilation unit that can participate in many different designs. So, as with packages, a hierarchical reference is generally not a great idea to embed in a compilation unit. Gord. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Vreugdenhil 503-685-0808 Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Mon Apr 27 08:37:25 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 27 2009 - 08:38:21 PDT