RE: [sv-bc] E-mal Vote: Respond by 8am PDT, Sunday Sep 30, 2007

Hi All,

I think it's important to pass 907, and it should be
fairly easy to alleviate the problems causing the
minor objections that have been voiced.

There have been different objections on the clarity
of interaction with implicit instantiations.  I think
the proposal is very close on that front, and if we
changed things from passive voice to active voice,
the clarity is better.

My idea is to convey that this is not an error a
user can perpetrate, but rather a stipulation on
a tool's behavior.

EXISTING:
If a parameter of a design element has no default value, then the design
element shall not be implicitly instantiated (see 22.3, 22.4, and 23.3).

PROPOSED:
If a parameter of a design element has no default value, then an
implementation shall not implicitly instantiate that design element (see
22.3, 22.4, and 23.3).

To me, the text above is crystal clear.

Now, as per interaction with 1851.
First, my comment for Shalom on 1851:
I think you should specify "class body" rather than just "class".
Because after all, parameters can be declared in the class port
list, which is part of the "class".  Does that make sense?

Second, I fail to see how this violates Mantis 1851.
Can you please explain why you think that, Shalom?
I studied both proposals carefully.  If you consider that
it's only legal to omit default values of parameters
specified in parameter port lists, the rest of the sentences
make sense and are consistent with 1851, in my opinion.

Thanks,
Doug

> 
> SVDB  907 ___Yes   _x_No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=907

Two objections:

1. Violates Mantis 1851. Text incorrect with respect to classes.
2. Unclear what happens if not implicitly instantiated.

> 
> SVDB 1035 _x_Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1035

I approve both V2 and V3.

> 
> SVDB 1228 _x_Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1228
> 
> SVDB 1425 ___Yes   _x_No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1425

There seems to be an extra line at the end of the added text that should
not be there.
I don't object to the rest, though.
 
> SVDB 1468 ___Yes   _x_No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1468

I'll accept my wording or Dave's.

> 
> SVDB 1710 _x_Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1710
> 
> SVDB 1747 _x_Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1747

Responding to Cliff: this is one enhancement that many users want. We
should honor their wishes. 
As for other objections, I would accept any other reasonable way to get
the same effect.

> 
> SVDB 1846 _x_Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1846
> 
> SVDB 1940 _x_Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1940

I am willing to take an action item to additionally change the text as I
suggested in my correspondence with Don. But I don't think the
additional changes should delay this Mantis.

> 
> SVDB 1949 _x_Yes   ___No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1949

Shalom
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

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



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