Situation: Different companies both working on common interface
Can we allow type matching across packages s.t. if one package defines a Bus1 record type and another also defines a Bus1 record type then they are the same if they conform to some degree. Would reqiure that the record field names are the same?
Would have an interesting impact on mixing numeric_std and std_logic_arith
Is this necessary? Interfaces between organizations should be tightly controlled and packages with record declarations can be shared through git.
port <name> of record <recordtype> is (
Peter Flake plans on taking a spin on the proposal
Scope of Keywords
As we add language keywords to the language it becomes likely that we will collide with a name already used in a design.
For example, the natural keyword to use for record IO mode declarations is "mode"
Should we consider giving all names including keywords scope and include keywords in the outer most region such that if someone uses a new keyword as a name in their design, the local definition of the name has scope over the keyword.
Time for the compiler folks to chime on this
ISAC IRs
Need to finish reviewing the list and catagorizing whether complete or not. Ryan
Next Meeting Date (proposed):
Thursday August 16, 8 am Pacific -- may need a meeting leader