Re: [vhdl-200x-ft] Record type conversions

Ryan,
> I'm sorry, I did not know you had referred this to Peter. I would love to
> see this on FT, but I realize there has to be a cutoff at some point.

I think we are still pre-cutoff, however, my concern is that there
may be some bigger picture issues that Peter is going to try to solve
in DTA and I don't want to make a decision that would make things
more difficult for that effort.

With that said, Peter may be happy with what you proposed and green
light it.

> The correspondence is done by name. Would "matching" be better than
> "corresponding"? "Matching" elements are defined for records in the
> FT-14/15 proposal.
My opinion is that neither is less ambiguous. I think the text may
want to identify that it means corresponding/matching by field name.

Is it ok if the fields are defined in different orders?

Cheers,
Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Lewis [mailto:Jim@SynthWorks.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 2:50 PM
> To: Hinton, Ryan W @ CSW-SLC; vhdl-200x-ft@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [vhdl-200x-ft] Record type conversions
>
>
> Ryan,
> > -- Corresponding elements have the same type.
> Is the correspondance done by order or by name or by both
> order and name?
>
> This is something Peter Ashenden volunteered to handle
> as part of DTA. I will let Peter chime in as to whether
> we should try to close this in FT or keep it in DTA.
>
> Best Regards,
> Jim
>
>
>>Here is a proposal for record type conversions. The textual, conceptual,
>>and implementation impact should be light.
>>
>>--------- Include text below ----------
>>IEEE 200X Fast Track Change Proposal
>>
>>ID: not yet assigned
>>
>>Proposer: Ryan Hinton
>>email: ryan.w.hinton@L-3com.com
>>
>>Status: Proposed
>>Proposed: 06/04
>>Analyzed: Date
>>Resolved: Date
>>
>>Enhancement Summary: Record type conversions
>>Related issues:
>>Relevant LRM section: 7.3.5
>>
>>Enhancement Detail:
>>
>>Allow conversion between record types by adding a "closely related type"
>
> to
>
>>section 7.3.5:
>>
>>c) Record Types -- Two record types are closely related if, and only if,
>
> all
>
>>of the following apply:
>>-- The types have the same elements.
>>-- Corresponding elements have the same type.
>>
>>Also, text should be added on how to perform record type conversions. The
>>following paragraph should suffice.
>>
>>If the type mark denotes a record type or subtype, each element of the
>>operand undergoes an implicit subtype conversion to the subtype of the
>>corresponding element in the type mark. It is an error if any of these
>>conversions fail.
>>
>>--------- Include text above ----------
>>
>>---
>>Ryan Hinton
>>L-3 Communications / Communication Systems - West
>>ryan.w.hinton@L-3com.com
>>
>>
>
>
>

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Lewis
Director of Training             mailto:Jim@SynthWorks.com
SynthWorks Design Inc.           http://www.SynthWorks.com
1-503-590-4787
Expert VHDL Training for Hardware Design and Verification
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~