Re: [vhdl-200x] Implicit conversion, Overloading, & Strong Typin g

Subject: Re: [vhdl-200x] Implicit conversion, Overloading, & Strong Typin g
From: Evan Lavelle (anti.spam1@dsl.pipex.com)
Date: Fri Dec 19 2003 - 09:51:14 PST

Bailey, Stephen wrote:
> Pardon the hyperbole in my recent statement:
>
> > It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, invisible.
>
> Please read this as if I said:
>
> When using the LRM terminology accurately and precisely, it is not invisible.

I hadn't actually noticed that bit. By 'invisible' I mean that there is
no text in a written program to indicate to a user that all is not what
is seems: there are various points in the code where an operator is
called automatically. It may not even be obvious where this operator is
defined.

BTW, I think you made the point elsewhere (I'm losing track!) that the
objection to the proposal was a readability and understandability
objection. My objection, and various other people have made the same
point, is that it compromises type safety.

Evan Lavelle
Riverside

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Dec 19 2003 - 09:53:33 PST