RE: [vhdl-200x-dta] Review of: [vhdl-200x] Revised white paper on type genericity

> > Regarding the distinction between parameters and ports: I think the
> > distinction is useful for the user.
> Perhaps I am foolish in this regard, anyone else have an opinion?

Yes, I think you are being foolish ;-) Sorry, couldn't resist. I think both of you are creating separate issues. Peter is introducing a new keyword to the language. In an attempt to eliminate the need for a new keyword and/or for esthetic reasons, Jim proposes to confuse the context in which the terms (not keyword) parameter and port are used in the language.

We should avoid adding new keywords unless they are absolutely needed. There are other approaches that would eliminate the need for a new keyword without confusing the contexts under which the terms "parameter" and "port" apply. I have previously mentioned (perhaps only verbally), such an approach:

The syntax can be changed such that only a parameter interface list could appear in that context by moving the generic clause to be lexically prior to the subprogram designator as in:

  [ generic ( generic_list ) ]
subprogram_designator
  [ ( formal_parameter_list ) ]
[ return type_mark ]

(I have taken the liberty of summarizing both procedure and function specifications in a single syntactic BNF production. Hopefully, that doesn't confuse anyone.)

-Steve Bailey
Received on Fri Apr 23 07:34:28 2004