Jim,
I think the type conversion should not care about the order the fields are
defined in. It should just match up the fields by name.
--- Ryan Hinton L-3 Communications / Communication Systems - West ryan.w.hinton@L-3com.com -----Original Message----- From: Jim Lewis [mailto:Jim@SynthWorks.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 3:16 PM To: Hinton, Ryan W @ CSW-SLC; vhdl-200x-ft@eda.org Subject: 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Received on Mon Jun 7 09:50:16 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 07 2004 - 09:50:18 PDT