home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.vhdl
- Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM!beihl
- From: beihl@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Gary Beihl)
- Subject: Re: Overload Resolution (Was: type conversion and configuration)
- Message-ID: <1993Jan08.112100.22886@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>
- Nntp-Posting-Host: linville.columbiasc.ncr.com
- Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC.
- References: <1993Jan4.225957.26359@viewlogic.com> <1993Jan05.101254.26831@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> <DANIEL.93Jan6115749@algol.clsi.COM>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 16:21:00 GMT
- Lines: 18
-
- In article <DANIEL.93Jan6115749@algol.clsi.COM> daniel@clsi.COM (Daniel S. Barclay) writes:
- >would it make a difference? Aren't Sunder's comments correct:
- >
- > "The first one when indexed gives you an element of std_ulogic, and
- > the latter gives std_logic. Now, std_logic is a subtype of std_ulogic,
- > which implies both have the same base type which is std_ulogic."
- >
- >What seemed to "narrow the search to a single choice"?
- >
-
- Sunder and Daniel are correct. I had somehow (temporarily) convinced
- myself that the subtype of the default expression had to match the
- subtype indication of the interface object. After re-reading the LRM
- and the previous posts, I'm now in agreement that the original code is
- ambiguous.
-
- Gary Beihl (gary.beihl@columbiasc.ncr.com)
-
-