Stu, I certainly hope the "is" versus "can be" didn't cause you to vote no. This is our last chance to pass items before the deadline and that part could have easily been dealt with as a friendly editorial suggestion. Clearly no one intends "is" to permit arbitrary selection of other rules. $unit always has fallen under normal scope resolution rules. I addressed that in my initial comments in: http://www.eda.org/sv-bc/hm/9366.html See in particular the reference to 26.3. Gord. Stuart Sutherland wrote: [...] >> SVDB 2611 ___Yes _X_No >> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2611 > > I do not like the proposed wording of the change. Does "If the prefix name > is resolved using the normal scope resolution rules,..." mean that a tool > can arbitrarily chose whether to follow the normal scope resolution rules? > Should "is" be replaced with "can be"? > > Also, do declarations in $unit fall under "normal scope resolution rules", > and therefore take priority of an explicit reference to a package with this > proposed change? -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 May 11 08:25:59 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 11 2009 - 08:29:36 PDT