[sv-ec] Editor's questions to sv-ec for merged LRM draft 3a

hi EC,

I've skimmed LRM draft 3a looking for the editor's marginal
notes with questions to the committees, and found the following
items that may be of interest to SV-EC.  Over the next few
days I'll try to do a more thorough trawl if I have time.


(1) String data types as arguments to system functions
    that have traditionally taken vector-style strings
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not sure whether this is EC or BC territory.
It turns up in a few places:
20.3.1/p479: the filename in $fopen
20.3.7/p488: the error string output from $ferror
31.9/p737: the filename in $sdf_annotate
D.13/p1013: the filename in $readmemb/h

(2) LRM recommends a convention and then fails to
    follow its own advice
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8.2/p145: says it's a common convention to capitalize
class names.  Personally I don't think this sentence 
belongs in the LRM at all.

(3) Generalizing some text about modules to include
    interfaces and programs
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
13.4.4/p274: defines precisely what a constant function
is, but refers explicitly to modules; presumably it should
consider also interfaces and programs.
22.3.1/p545: defines what a top-level module is, and
requires that every design should have one.  Needs 
generalization to cover interfaces and programs.

(4) Failed cross-reference to definition of #1step
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
14.3/p282: 1step not defined in the indicated x-ref 3.12.  
Should a suitable definition go in the table at 3.12?

-- 
Jonathan Bromley


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.