Re: [vhdl-200x] CFV: Proposal to Merge P1604 into P1076

I will positive ballot anything that eliminates the ability of vendors
to legally place non-standard VHDL design units in the IEEE library. By
"legally" I mean both in the standards sense and the US court system sense.

When engineers make the decision to move legacy code from 1987 -> 1993
-> 2002 -> 200x they will have issues to contend with. This is a very
trivial one to fix along the way.

As for the continued promotion of (non)std_logic_arith I believe we
(vendors and users) should all publically and vociferously commit to
eliminating the use of this package as soon as possible and migrate
people to the appropriate IEEE standard. Otherwise, what is the point of
supporting the production of standards?

We can have a healthy (and probably spirted) debate about whether it is
"good practice" to write VHDL using the arithmetic approach found in
std_logic_unsigned. If the package (and approach) is that useful and
widespread then why isn't it standardized? Then there would be no
problem putting it in the IEEE library. I'd like to see you persue that
avenue.

--
Aspen Logic, Inc.
By: Tim Davis, President
Jim Lewis wrote:
>
>> Should the P1604 WG (scope) be merged into P1076?
>>
>> 1. __X__ Affirmative (optional comments will be recorded).
>
>
> I agree that this belongs in 1076, however, I will
> negative ballot any issue here that moves things already
> in library ieee out of library ieee (ie: std_logic_arith
> and std_logic_unsigned).  Legacy code must
> stay working without changes to library references.
>
> Jim