ISAC: Minutes from meeting on 12 July 2007

Attached are the minutes from today's ISAC meeting. Because of the low 
attendance, we only discussed
IR 2099. Please review these minutes ASAP and let me know your opinion 
about the proposed
changes. We need to get moving on this IR.

Chuck Swart


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


Minutes of ISAC meeting held via telecom on 12 July 2007

Present: Chuck Swart, Ajay Verikat

Absent: Peter Ashenden, Jim Lewis, Larry Soule, Lance Thompson

Next Meeting: Thursday, August 2, 2007, 8 pm Pacific Daylight Time
             (Friday, August 3, 2007, 3 am GMT)


Peter was unable to attend, but there was a brief telecom exchange
about IR 2099 with him just before the official meeting.

TOPIC: IR 2099 Alias declarations introduce homographs

Peter sent an email with several issues: There is a relatively
minor mistake in example 1b. This needs to be fixed. There is a more
important error in the proposed new wording for defining homographs.
The new wording did not properly allow for aliases of non-overloadable
entities such as types. Peter suggested better wording. Finally, he pointed
out that the wording in the Accellera D3.0 version of the LRM is deficient.
The will be corrected through Bugzilla issue #131.

Ajay had a comment concerning example 9a, which is:

package p1 is
   type T is (a,b,c);
   alias "=" is "="[T,T return boolean];
   function "=" (L,R : T) return boolean;
end package p1;

The proposed solution was that "Two homographs are declared in the same declarative region. Since neither is an implicit declaration or an implicit alias, t6his code is illegal." Ajay proposed an alternative interpretation. An alias of
an implicit declaration is treated as if it were an implicit declaration.
Therefore the code is legal.

Chuck asked about the following variation (which will be added to example 9)

package p1 is
   type T is (a,b,c);
   alias my_func is "="[T,T return boolean];
   function my_func (L,R : T) return boolean;
end package p1;

We agreed that this code should also be legal.

It was noted that we need to move rapidly on this, since its resolution
is blocking some IEEE approval activities for the next language version.

ACTION: ALL to review these proposed changes. Chuck to revise the IR.
ALL to vote on the revised IR.