RE: [vhdl-200x-ft] real_vector type from vhdl-ams

John,

Your comment about reserved words made me check the vhdl-2002 LRM. Indeed,
the word reference is listed there, but should not be. Did I overlook any
others? (I'm notorious for just doing "boy looks"!) We have an ISAC issue
open for fixing AMS-isms that have snuck into the LRM - I'll add this one.
Thanks.

Cheers,

PA

--
Dr. Peter J. Ashenden                        peter@ashenden.com.au
Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd.                   www.ashenden.com.au
PO Box 640                                   Ph:  +61 8 8339 7532
Stirling, SA 5152                            Fax: +61 8 8339 2616
Australia                                    Mobile: +61 414 70 9106
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vhdl-200x-ft@eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x-ft@eda.org] On Behalf Of John J. Shields
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 August 2004 06:53
> To: 'David Bishop'; vhdl-200x-ft@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [vhdl-200x-ft] real_vector type from vhdl-ams
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> REAL_VECTOR was introduced in 1076.1. It has been declared in 
> std.standard because the type is needed for the definition of 
> the 'LTF and 'ZTF attributes defined by 1076.1. The type is 
> also not declared in 1076-2002, although for some reason some 
> (but not all) of the 1076.1 reserved words are also reserved 
> (but unused) in 1076-2002.
> 
> I don't know about integer_vector...where did you find it?
> 
> Regards, John Shields
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vhdl-200x-ft@eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x-ft@eda.org] 
> > On Behalf Of David 
> Bishop
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 9:22 AM
> > To: vhdl-200x-ft@eda.org
> > Subject: [vhdl-200x-ft] real_vector type from vhdl-ams
> > 
> > After last night's telecon I went hunting through the VHDL-AMS 
> > documentation looking for "real_vector" and "integer_vector" to see 
> > how they are defined.
> > 
> > I found several places in the vhdl-ams packages where they are 
> > defined.  However, I could find no definitions of these types 
> > anywhere.
> > 
> > Since we may be using these types in the "minimum" and "maximum" 
> > function, we should take a look at how and where they are defined.
> 
>