RE: [sv-ec] Abstract classes and virtual methods

Thanks for correcting me Neil; I never updated my calendar after the
last meeting.

Mehdi, 

Now that SNPS has switched to outlook, it would be a good idea to send
the meeting notice to the sv-ec as an outlook appointment.

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neil Korpusik [mailto:Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 3:07 PM
> To: Rich, Dave
> Cc: sv-ec@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Abstract classes and virtual methods
> 
> The schedule for the next 2 meetings of the svec is as follows.
> From Dave' last post, it appears that he was thinking that we
> would be meeting on Feb. 6th (which is not correct).
> 
> Neil
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [sv-ec] next meeting date/time
> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 13:11:52 -0800
> From: Mehdi Mohtashemi <Mehdi.Mohtashemi@synopsys.com>
> To: sv-ec@eda.org
> 
> Hi all,
> There is slight change in the meeting time proposed in the
> beginning of our discussion today, we confirmed the change
> at the end (around 1:00pm).
> The next two meetings for sv-ec subcommittee is scheduled as follows:
> 
> 	Monday, February 13th, 2006  11:00-1:00pm
>    and
>       Monday, February 27th, 2006  11:00-1:00pm
> 
> This will allow us to work around the p1800 mtg/holidays as well
> as getting the proposals ready to vote on.  I will update the
> sv-ec database meeting page to reflect the above as well as the
> next meeting call/agenda once it will be sent out.
> Regards,
> - Mehdi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, Dave wrote On 02/04/06 00:49,:
> > I have updated the proposal to incorporate the feedback from the
email
> > reflector. http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001308.
I
> > have attached a version with markups from 1800 to this for your
> > convenience.
> >
> > There seems to be two remaining issues that need consensus.
> >
> > 1. What level of matching defaults is needed for virtual methods?
The
> > current proposal only requires the presence of a default to match
for
> > each argument, not their expressions. I think a matching expression
is
> > unnecessary and not very useful.
> >
> > 2. The syntax for declaring a method without an implementation. The
> > current proposal reuses the syntax for out-of-class body, which is
what
> > Vera does. Some have suggested that this might be visually
ambiguous,
> > but I think since you have to mark the class as 'virtual', it is
> > unlikely that you will be providing out-of-class bodies at the same
> > time.
> >
> > I may not be able to make most of Monday's meeting, but I think #2
is
> > very critical because a lot of class libraries are being written as
this
> > very moment. Let's try to reach consensus on this issue via e-mail
ASAP.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > David Rich
> > Verification Technologist
> > Design Verification & Test Division
> > Mentor Graphics Corporation
> > dave_rich@mentor.com
> > Office:   408 487-7206
> > Cell:     510 589-2625
> >
> >
> 
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Neil Korpusik                                     Tel: 408-720-4852
> Senior Staff Engineer                             Fax: 408-720-4850
> Frontend Technologies - ASICs & Processors (FTAP)
> Sun Microsystems
> email: neil.korpusik@sun.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>