RE: [sv-ec] Package references/LRM

 
I am fine with that but that may cause lots of trouble for users who
have not
understood the usage of packages.

Francoise
    '
-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Vreugdenhil [mailto:gordonv@model.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 3:42 PM
To: Francoise Martinolle
Cc: sv-ec@server.eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Package references/LRM


Francoise, the entire point of the restriction on compilation unit
references is to not allow packages to have external dependencies.  So I
would consider this example to be illegal.

Gord

Francoise Martinolle wrote:
> Is this legal?
>  
>  
> package p1;
>  class c1;
>  endclass
> endpackage
>  
> import p1::*;
>  
> package p2;
>   class c2 extends c1;
>   endclass
> endpackage
>  
>  
> according to the LRM section 26.2
> 
> Items within packages shall not have hierarchical references to 
> identifiers except
> 
> those created within the package or made visible by import of another 
> package. A package shall not refer to
> 
> items defined in the compilation unit scope.
> 
> With the language above ("items defined") it is not completely clear 
> if
> c1 can be referred by package p2. c1 is not declared
> 
> in the compilation unit but is made visible in the cu by the import 
> clause. What is the meaning of defined?
> 
>  
> 
> It is clear that if you move the import inside package p2, all is
well.
> 
> Francoise
> 
>  
> 
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by 
> *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is believed to be 
> clean.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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.