hi EC, Thanks for all the input on 1702 yesterday. I've updated 1702's proposal: - removed its dependence on 1447 - specified that any write to a queue outdates any reference to the old queue's elements; if you want persistent references, you must manipulate the queue using its methods (is this too drastic? will it break existing code?) - various tidy-ups as suggested - tweaks to comments in clause 7.11 to reflect new reference-persistence definition I thought again about Steven's point regarding queues with unions as elements, and I think it's OK. The members of an unpacked array concat must have self-determined type, and if that type is not the union type (as opposed to one of the union's members) then it can't be copied to the union. So I don't think there can be an ambiguity. If someone can find an example of how it could go wrong, I'll willingly recant. I haven't had time to write up a proposal for 958 today; I'll get to it in the next 24 hours. Sorry. -- Jonathan Bromley, Consultant DOULOS - Developing Design Know-how VHDL * Verilog * SystemC * e * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project Services Doulos Ltd. Church Hatch, 22 Market Place, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 1AW, UK Tel: +44 (0)1425 471223 Email: jonathan.bromley@doulos.com Fax: +44 (0)1425 471573 Web: http://www.doulos.com The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the views of Doulos Ltd., unless specifically stated. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Tue Nov 27 14:09:39 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 27 2007 - 14:09:54 PST