RE: [sv-bc] E-mail Vote: Respond by 8am PDT, Monday, October 29

Cliff,

On 1278, you wrote:

"I am not strongly opposed to this proposal, but I actually prefer
"initial block,"
"always block," "clocking block," "final block," etc., to initial
construct, etc. I
would rather see the BNF changed to reflect the _block style. I like the
shorter, 1-
syllable "block" to the longer 2-syllable "construct" (since I have to
say it 100's of
times in each training class).

Note that Draft4 of the 1800 standard has changed all "block" and
"construct"
instances to "procedure," which I more strongly oppose (see editor's
note next to
section 9.2). I think of a procedure as being a subroutine (like in
VHDL) or a
medical operation. Even though we talk about procedural code, I don't
like to refer
to an initial procedure (sounds like the first step in a methodology).

So my preferences would be:
(1) blocks
(2) constructs
(3) procedures

I agree that the LRM should be consistent. I don't think we should spend
a lot of
time debating. I think we should have quick arguments in the BC meeting
and then
put it to a vote and be done with it." 


I am not sure it was clear to you that the proposal is to close the
issue, as the LRM has *already* been made consistent except for the BNF,
which is consistent in a different way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.