> First, a humble request. I have a great deal of respect for you, > Tristan, for writing a VHDL compiler. So I'm sad when I can't > understand your newsgroup posts. I would love it if you would spend > a little more time and text teaching me about the complexities, > background, your experience, and why you hold a particular opinion. Thank you for the comment! Maybe I should write a blog, but given my poor english (and limited amount of time), I haven't yet. I have the implementor point of view: a new feature simply mean more works, so I prefer to be sure there is a real need for any new feature. So I am very conservative (maybe too much but that counterbalances users point of view, which is not that bad). I also prefer to make the core language as small as possible, so that it remains understandable and adding new features in libraries (packages in vhdl speak). As an implementor, I also need to understand all details and I therefore consider details are very important. Again, users may have the opposite view. I am not sure that there is currently a full implementation of VHDL 2008, which simply means that the standard runs too fast. This also means that issues aren't fixed. I really think that a language needs implementations! > Next, if the visibility rules are wrong, please write up a proposal > and/or bring it up on the list! You're right. I should take the time to expose the issues I have found. Maybe some of them are just misunderstanding from me. > Now I'll try to share my opinion without being too verbose. > > Long /= impossible to read. [...] Thank you for sharing a real case! That makes the requirement much less abstract. And that also helps to understand your point of view. I think your proposal is manageable and a not very difficult extension to be implemented (well localised, based on an already existing features). Some issues are in the details: you need to consider access types, maybe also protected type (not sure about it) and be compatible for one dimensional array types. As you can see, no major difficulties. I would have prefer a much generic facilities, but I think that would be too much work. And I also still think this is not a major, required feature: this could be implemented manually by creating user functions. In a short: a nice to have extension to make user life easier. Regards, Tristan. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Jul 24 01:00:37 2014
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 24 2014 - 01:00:45 PDT