RE: [vhdl-200x] Implicit conversion, Overloading, & Strong Typing

Subject: RE: [vhdl-200x] Implicit conversion, Overloading, & Strong Typing
From: Scott Thibault (thibault@gmvhdl.com)
Date: Fri Dec 19 2003 - 08:49:04 PST

> What Scott suggests is not a robust solution. In fact what would
> (if (we_n) then

I didn't suggest that. I was commenting on the current proposal, i.e.:
        if (we) then
or
        if (not we_n) then

My point is that the benefit of the above is not less typing, but avoiding
the countless compiler errors that result using the current standard when
the designer accidentally enters code like the above, which in my experience
occurs frequently.

--Scott

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Dec 19 2003 - 08:51:14 PST