RE: call for electronic vote on IR2040

Folks,

Some comments on IR2040.

The paragraph in 4.3.2.2, page 68, that describes individual association
specifies that the formal must be identified by a locally static name. The
proposed revision to item (a) of 7.3.2.2 specifies that a formal designator
that is a slice have a static range. This partially duplicates the rule of
4.3.2.2, but is less strict. The danger is that a reader might consider the
specification in 7.3.2.2(a)(2) to be *the* specification of staticness of a
formal in that context, and overlook the rule of 4.3.2.2. I think it would
be better to omit mention of staticness in 7.3.2.2(a)(2). It could be
rewritten as:

  a) As an actual associated with a formal parameter, formal generic or
     formal port (or member thereof), where either
     1) the formal is declared to be of a constrained array subtype, or
     2) the formal designator is a slice name

The second sentence of the fourth paragraph could be rewritten as:

     If the aggregate appears in one of the contexts in the preceding list,
     then the direction of the index subtype of the aggregate is that of
     the corresponding constrained array subtype or that of the range of
     the corresponding slice name, as appropriate; ...

I also noticed that item (d) of 7.3.2.2 suffers from the same problem as
(a). Moreover, its grammar appears to have been mangled; the parenthetic
remark was glued onto the end inappropriately. I'd suggest it be revised
to:

  d) As a value expression in an assignment statement, where the target is a
     declared object (or member thereof), and either
     1) the subtype of the target is a constrained array subtype, or
     2) the target is a slice name

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-isac@eda.org [mailto:owner-isac@eda.org] On 
> Behalf Of Chuck Swart
> Sent: Saturday, 4 December 2004 05:03
> To: isac
> Subject: call for electronic vote on IR2040
> 
> 
> Attached is IR2040 Problems with OTHERS in aggregates
> It is unchanged from the last revision submitted by Ajay.
> 
> Please vote on this as soon as you can.
> 
> An issue was raised that the term "index subtype" was 
> incorrectly applied to aggregates. After discussing this with 
> the person who raised the objection, we concluded that there 
> is a general issue here, but that the wording of the proposal 
> is consistent with the rest of the wording in section 
> 7.3.2.2. So we recommend that the IR2040 be approved as it is worded.
> 
> We will issue a separate IR on the more general issue of
> index subtypes applied incorrectly.
> 
> Chuck Swart
>