RE: [sv-bc] 2008 changes will need Champion review of clause 12.5.3

Hi,
 
One by one:


	12.4.2 - Is this "expressions" or "conditions"?  Seems like the
expressions are being evaluated.  If so, no change needed to your doc.

	Unique-if and unique0-if assert that there is no overlap in a
series of if-else-if conditions, i.e., they are mutually exclusive and
hence it is safe for the expressions conditions to be evaluated in
parallel. 
	[SB] Good catch. 12.4 uses 'expression', 12.4.1 uses both
'expression' and 'condition', but 12.4.2 uses 'condition' consistently,
so I will change it here also. 

	 

	You also completely struck this out with no replacement.

	 

	For unique-if and unique0-if, an implementation shall also issue
a warning if it determines that no condition is true, or it is possible
that no condition is true, and the final if does not have a
corresponding else. For unique0-if, an implementation shall not issue a
warning if it determines that no condition is true.

	 

	It should be replaced with:

	For unique-if, an implementation shall also issue a violation
report if it determines that no condition is true, or it is possible
that no condition is true, and the final if does not have a
corresponding else. For unique0-if, an implementation shall not issue a
violation report if it determines that no condition is true.
	[SB] I had deleted this as redundant. The text earlier says, "If
the keywords unique or priority are used,  a violation report shall be
issued if no condition matches unless there is an explicit else ... If
the keyword unique0 is used, there shall be no violation if no condition
is matched."

	 

	12.5.3

	 

	4th paragraph, 1st sentence: You have

	If the case is qualified as priority or unique, the simulator
implementation shall issue a warning message if no case_item matches

	 

	Should be:

	If the case is qualified as priority or unique, the simulator
implementation shall issue a  warning  message violation report if no
case_item matches
	[SB] Yes, thanks. 

	 

	4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: You struck out this sentence.  I
don't believe this should be removed. Only the third sentence should be
removed.

	If the case is qualified as unique0, the implementation shall
not issue a violation report if no case_item matches.
	[SB] It was moved to be the last sentence in the paragraph, as
in the proposal for 2131 and as in your original proposal.  
	

	 

	 

	Just before examples:

	 

	NOTE-By specifying unique or priority, it is not necessary to
code a default case to trap unexpected case values

	 

	Should be:

	 

	NOTE-By specifying unique, unique0, or priority, it is not
necessary to code a default case to trap unexpected case values
	[SB] unique0 does not trap unexpected case values. 

	 

	So I will make two changes above in my proposal and post it
shortly on Mantis.

	 

	Thanks,

	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.