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

I won't be able to make the 13th either, so my request to discuss this
via e-mail still stands.

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich, Dave
> Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 3:12 PM
> To: 'Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM'
> Cc: sv-ec@eda.org
> Subject: 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
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >