[Fwd: Re: Some questions about newly submitted IR 2127]

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

attached mail follows:

Oh, okay.

I was pointing out that there was not NCSIM name clashes for other cases
were names in packages are the same as those used in STANDARD, 'and'
from std_logic_1164 being and example. You seem to be saying that this
is as expected because arguments and return types are taken into account
for subprograms.

Sorry to have created confusion,
Farrell

-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Swart - MTI [mailto:cswart@model.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 12:52 PM
To: Farrell Ostler
Subject: Re: Some questions about newly submitted IR 2127

Farrell:
I'm sorry, I should have made myself clearer.
The primary issue is well defined. However, you also said:
"However, the ncvhdl tool apparently
does not consider that an 'and' in STANDARD clashes with an 'and'
being made visible from package std_logic_1164."

That is the part I wanted clarification on.

Chuck Swart


Farrell Ostler wrote:
> Chuck,
>
> I don't have a copy of my submission but what I believe I mentioned
was
> that identifiers called "min" were clashing, not "and".
>
> One min, standing for minutes, was from the TIME type in STANDARD. The
> other was a min function that took two integer arguments and returned
> the minimum. This function was declared in a package and the clash
> happened in yet another compilation unit in which it was attempted to
> make the min function directly visible.
>
> I hope that helps to explain the issue.
>
> Thanks,
> Farrell
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck Swart - MTI [mailto:cswart@model.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 6:14 PM
> To: Farrell Ostler
> Subject: Some questions about newly submitted IR 2127
>
> Farrell
> Your IR titled:
>
> Has been added to the ISAC repository as IR 2127.
> We will consider this at our meeting on Wednesday, January 09,2008.
>
> I have a question to clarify an issueswhich you raise.
>
>
>
> You report a problem where you think that ncsim should detect a clash 
> between an "and"
> in standard and an "and" in std_logic_ll64. Can you give me the
profiles
>
> of the two "and" functions?
> I'm not aware of any conflicts:
> package standard has "and" functions for bit, boolean, and bit_vector
> package  std_logic_1164 has "and" functions for  std_ulogic, 
> std_logic_vector, and std_ulogic_vector
>
> Chuck Swart
> chair, ISAC
>  
>
>
>