Re: [sv-ec] email ballot -- closes midnight October 7.2004

Hi Mehdi,

Here are my votes.

-------------
  Errata
     7 Clarification to 20.4.1, new 20.10
__X__ Yes ____ No

     8 Randsequence grammar issues
__X__ Yes ____ No

   173 Is the order of declaration in a covergroup
__X__ Yes ____ No

   197 Is a String an array
__X__ Yes ____ No

   203 Section 3.7, delete the sentence "and embedded null bytes are included"
__X__ Yes ____ No

    But, I agree with Ray & Neil that this change needs further clarification.

   231 Clarify the second paragraph in Section 16.5
__X__ Yes ____ No
  
   236 Behavior of the cycle_delay with 'Zero' value
____ Yes __X__ No

This proposal merits more thorough discussion and review.
The sentence "there is a clocking event" is not specific enough. Does it mean
the clocking event happened at all? in the current time-step / delta-cycle?

   238 Pipelined value access in clocking block
____ Yes __X__ No

This is an enhancement. And it needs more thorough review.
I have several objections to the syntactic elements of this proposal:
1) Use of the additional keyword "depth".
2) It overloads the '.' operator to achieve the same as $past().
    How will this work with part selects, multiple dimensions, or structs?
    Should these be valid?
        mxbus.data[1].1 // bit select
        mxbus.data[2].1[3] // multidimensional arrays
        mxbus.data.(N + 2) // parameterized depth

   240 Expression evaluation with cycle_delay
____ Yes __X__ No

This enhancement introduces blocking expressions into the language, which
is a radical departure from existing semantics.
    The semantics of blocking expressions are unspecified.
    The expressive power of this proposal does not improve upon the expect statement.

-------------

    Arturo
Received on Thu Oct 7 19:08:10 2004