RE: [sv-ec] RE: [sv-bc] Final blocks in packages

Arturo,

Final blocks are not processes, so they are not symmetrical with initial
blocks.

In any case, I might be able to convince Doug that we don't need them in
packages because we don't have need for destructors either.

The slippery slope I'm trying to avoid is if a package appears in the
woods, and nobody references it, does it still exist? I think the answer
to that question should always be it doesn't matter.

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
>
> 
> I understand that initial blocks, always blocks, and continuous
> assignments are currently not allowed in packages. And I'm OK with
that
> limitation although I don't believe it is fundamental in any way. In
> fact, if your final block proposal passes, people will likely wonder
> about the lack of symmetry (why not allow initial blocks as well). I
> think the only truly problematic construct is the continuous
assignment.
> 
> So what's so problematic about a process originating within a package?

> 
> As for the debate regarding thread vs. declarative scope in the
reactive
> region scheduling discussions, I didn't think we had enough time to
work
> out a change in the semantics at the time. But, I'd be happy to
revisit
> the decision.
>