Re: [vhdl-200x] Corrections to Minutes for VHDL-200X-FT meeting, San Jose Dec 4, 2003

Subject: Re: [vhdl-200x] Corrections to Minutes for VHDL-200X-FT meeting, San Jose Dec 4, 2003
From: Evan Lavelle (anti.spam1@dsl.pipex.com)
Date: Fri Dec 19 2003 - 10:16:04 PST

Bailey, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Now you folks come along and want to imply meaning where none was
>> intended.
>
> If no boolean equivalence is intended in the written code, how does the
> proposal impose one?

This is the crux of the type safety issue. If the user had intended to write

  if we = '0' ...

but instead got distracted and wrote

  if we ...

and there is a visible condition operator, then the proposal generates
incorrect logic with no warning. The language is no longer strongly
typed. Catching this sort of error at compile time is exactly what a
strong statically typed language is meant to be good at.

Evan Lavelle
Riverside

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Dec 19 2003 - 10:17:41 PST