RE: [vhdl-200x] Modular types

So... in summary (so far):

Minimum requirements are:
* Modular types must allow any modulus
* Modular types which are modulo-power-of-2 must allow logical and shift operations

One remaining question is whether or not to define logical and shift operations for modulo-non-power-of-2. 
    For: it makes the language definition "tidier".
Against: it's not a useful feature so why implement it.

Personally, I quite like both those arguments, which doesn't help much :)


Then we have Andy's points regarding using a resolution function to implement the behaviour:

> Among subtypes, I still favor a resolved subtype (extended to variables) approach. It has a smaller impact on the
> language, while still providing the needed functionality.

I'm not sure it has a smaller impact - I think a new, well-defined type or subtype has fewer potential ramifications than extending the general behaviour of the assignment operation.
 
> If we wanted modular types, we would probably need generic packages that defined the operators, etc. along with
> the new types, with the modulus passed in as a generic. 

I'm not sure we would, if modular types were a first-class language feature (defined in the LRM - which is how I would personally see them) then no packages would be required for the operators or types.

Cheers,
Martin

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.