RE: namespace tlm

I don’t have strong opinion on this. I think the motivation for having the
tlm1 and tlm2 namespaces was for people who wanted to clearly indicate in their
models that they were using one or the other, but not both. If OSCI were designing
tlm1 and tlm2 from scratch, we’d probably have done something like this to avoid the confusion.
But you may be right that it is too late now .. Aside from a bit more clutter in the LRM, what practical
drawbacks do you see for users – they can continue to just use tlm:: if they want and be oblivious
to the other names, right ?

-Stuart

From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 3:34 PM
To: systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Subject: namespace tlm

All,

A while back we discussed introducing two new namespaces, tlm1 and tlm2, but observed that in order to keep backward compatibility we would have to retain the namespace tlm incorporating names from both namespaces.

Given the existence of substantial amounts of legacy code for both TLM-1 and TLM-2.0, all of which uses namespace tlm, I am wondering about the wisdom of introducing two new namespaces at this point. Does it really buy us anything? Will users really want to bothered with distinguishing between tlm1:: and tlm2:: ?

What does everyone think?

Thanks,

John A



--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.

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