D
David Jones
Guest
LRM 4.3.2.2, p. 63, line 508:
"Each association element that associates a slice or subelement (or slice
thereof) of an interface object must identify the formal with a locally
static name."
LRM 6.1, p. 84, line 46:
"a name is said to be a locally static name if and only if one of the
following conditions hold:
The name is a simple name ... that is not an alias and that does not denote
.... an object ...
"
LRM 4.3, p. 53, lines 94-100:
"An object is one of the following:
....
A formal port
....
A local port
"
With these definitions, how is the following legal:
U1: FOO port map(BAR(3) => BAZ);
BAR is an object, therefore not a locally static name.
Did the LRM really mean to say that the slice/index expression must be
a locally static expression? That makes sense.
"Each association element that associates a slice or subelement (or slice
thereof) of an interface object must identify the formal with a locally
static name."
LRM 6.1, p. 84, line 46:
"a name is said to be a locally static name if and only if one of the
following conditions hold:
The name is a simple name ... that is not an alias and that does not denote
.... an object ...
"
LRM 4.3, p. 53, lines 94-100:
"An object is one of the following:
....
A formal port
....
A local port
"
With these definitions, how is the following legal:
U1: FOO port map(BAR(3) => BAZ);
BAR is an object, therefore not a locally static name.
Did the LRM really mean to say that the slice/index expression must be
a locally static expression? That makes sense.