Hi Brian, > This has some appeal. If ?? in this role was an operator and therefore > overloadable, I could see other uses for it. > > Could I overload it to convert between integer and a new integer type? > type saturable_integer is new integer; > with the overloaded ?? operator providing saturation? In the proposal [[ImplicitConversionNumeric]] I have explored converting between distinct, but similar types (unsigned and integer). So if you were using saturable_integer and wanted to assign it to an integer, I can see that. OTOH, it does not seem to be a mechanism that would allow intercepting the assignment of the same type to itself. I like your suggestion of using control types to do this. I have also been thinking of the new operator as you have above. I am guessing it creates a new type that inherits all the functions of the base type, except it is a distinct type and we can add additional overloading. Can it also replace the inherited overloading with explicitly defined overload functions? It would have been handy to derive unresolved_unsigned, unresolved_signed, ... from std_ulogic_vector. That way we would not have had to create "and" - however this is water under the bridge at this point. I see it as a mechanism to go from one type to another type that holds a similar value. So if you have a separate type for saturable_integer, then I > > That would be a more flexible and general mechanism. It's late here so > I'll probably see the inevitable downside right after "Send". > > - Brian -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jim Lewis Jim@SynthWorks.com VHDL Training Expert http://www.SynthWorks.com IEEE VHDL Working Group Chair OSVVM, Chief Architect and Cofounder 1-503-590-4787 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Oct 29 08:12:02 2014
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 29 2014 - 08:12:44 PDT