Re: [vhdl-200x] interface proposals

Sorry, I meant:
type aRecdView of aRecd is record view
    ...
end record view aRecdView;

Cheers, Dan

On 3 December 2015 at 09:12, Daniel Kho <daniel.kho@gmail.com> wrote:

> While the language specifies the higher level syntax feature of entities,
> components, packages and possibly other design units to have a consistent
> syntax, the same syntax cannot be applied to a record type.
>
> For example, entities, components, and packages have syntax that looks
> like the following:
> entity anEntity is
>     generic(...);
>     port(...);
> end entity anEntity;
>
> package aPkg is
>     ...
> end package aPkg;
>
> However, a record type's syntax looks like:
> type aRecd is record
>     ...
> end record aRecd;
>
> The "end record" is required by the language to close the syntax of the
> record type. However, we begin the syntax with "type ... is record". This
> syntax is different from entities, components, and packages.
>
> If we want to have new syntax to describe a record view, but still want to
> terminate the syntax with an "end record view", we therefore should not (in
> my opinion) use syntax similar to entities, components, and packages. The
> reason is because the record type syntax already terminates with an "end
> record".
>
> It makes sense therefore to extend the record type's syntax (and not
> syntax following entities, components, etc.) to a record view. This way, we
> still remain consistent with the rest of the language.
> type aRecdView of aRecd is record view
>     ...
> end record aRecdView;
>
> Cheers, Dan
>
> On 1 December 2015 at 16:46, <tgingold@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> [...]
>> > I think the syntax can accommodate both semantics:
>> >
>> >
>> >     type BitRecType is
>> >        generic(
>> >           Size : Natural
>> >        );
>> >        record
>> >           A : String (1 to Size);
>> >           B : Std_Logic_Vector;
>> >        end record BitRecType;
>> >
>> >     entity BitEntity is
>> >        generic(
>> >           Size  : Natural := 10;
>> >           Width : Natural := 8
>> >        );
>> >        port(
>> >           IP : in  BitRecType( B(Width - 1 downto 0) ) generic
>> >           map(Size);
>> >           OP : out BitRecType( B(Width - 1 downto 0) ) generic
>> >           map(Size)
>> >        );
>> >     end entity BitEntity;
>> >
>> >
>> > I think that the 'record_constraint' is syntactically differentiated
>>
>> The fact that there is two possible ways ('generic' and unconstrained
>> elements) for the same higher level feature (specifying the size of
>> elements) is not a good sign.
>>
>> You haven't answered my first question: is an 'instance' of a type
>> with a generic part a new type or the same type ?
>>
>> Tristan.
>>
>>
>