VASG Issue Number:      0238
Comment Author:         Doug Dunlop
Comment Number:         01
Comment Date:           1991/03/25

Given the status of configuration declarations as primary units, why is
notation such as "configuration x of y.z" not desirable?

A related matter that VHDL 92 must address is the visibility of the "entity
name" in a configuration declaration.  At least one vendor *requires* an
expanded name here in the absence of a suitable use clause.  Other
implementations are more generous to the user in this regard but it is
unclear how this treatment is justified given the present wording of the LRM.