RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [vhdl-200x] Directional records proposal

The SV interface does not have directions. The equivalent construct is
"modport", as was mentioned earlier in this thread.

Since VHDL already has the ability to bundle signals in a record, it does
not need a new construct for the simplest usage of "interface".

So what is needed is something that is a record with directions and can be
connected to a record without directions, maybe with subsetting rules.

Peter Flake

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Bailey, Stephen
Sent: 13 July 2012 15:03
To: vhdl-200x@eda.org
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [vhdl-200x] Directional records proposal

The equivalent construct in SystemVerilog is "interface." Not equivalent to
user-defined modes, but equivalent to the general capability of this
discussion: bundling all the elements of an interface in a handy package.
 Once you go down this route, it becomes clear that it is more than bundling
of interface elements of different modes. Interfaces have their own
behavioral (functional) and annotatable characteristics.

------------
Stephen Bailey
Director of Emerging Technologies, DVT
Mentor Graphics
www.Mentor.com

On 7/13/12 8:56 AM, "Paul Colin Gloster" <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org>
wrote:

>On Friday the 13th of July 2012, Jones, Andy D emailed:
>|----------------------------------------------------------------------
>|---
>--|
>|"VHDL has built in types, but also allows the user to define new types
> |
>|and subtypes in terms of built-in types or previously defined types.
> |
>|
> |
>|VHDL has built-in port modes (in, out, inout, buffer, etc.). [. . .]"
> |
>|----------------------------------------------------------------------
>|---
>--|
>
>Andy,
>
>VHDL also allows a user to create a new type (enumeration)
>independently of already existing types. I was asking for clarification
>as to whether you wanted to be able to create completely new modes, or
>whether you wanted what everyone else correctly assumed you meant.
>
>|----------------------------------------------------------------------
>|---
>--|
>|"User-defined modes is what I am calling this ability to define new
> |
>|composite modes for composite (record) types. [. . .]
> |
>|
> |
>|Maybe something like "composite modes" is a more appropriate
>nomenclature? |
>|
> |
>|I'm not married to any nomenclature for this feature; [. . .]"
> |
>|----------------------------------------------------------------------
>|---
>--|
>
>One name is not necessarily better than another.
>
>Yours sincerely,
>Colin Paul
Received on Fri Jul 13 08:17:24 2012