[sv-ec] rewording 1615

Per Neil's e-mail (http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-ec/hm/4675.html),
the Champions did not like the wording of this sentence:

   Calling a function that executes a fork..join_none block
   shall be illegal in any context in which a side effect is
   disallowed or any context other than procedural code
   originating in an initial block.

Note that this is not the same as
   Calling a function that executes a fork..join_none block
   shall be legal only in procedural code originating in an
   initial block.
(which is what I thought one of the Champions suggested)
because the procedural code may still be in a context in which
a side effect is disallowed.

I think that this:
   A function that executes a fork..join_none block shall only
   be called in procedural code originating in an initial
   procedure and in a context in which side effects are allowed.

captures both exclusions.  The following sentence reads:

   Examples of such illegal contexts are continuous assignments,
   nonblocking assignments, always_comb blocks, static variable
   declaration initializers, elaboration-time calls, and concurrent
   assertions.

(after changing "initialized" to "initializers" on the 3rd line).

We took a vote (and I believe it passed, with 2 against) to send
the current proposal back to the Champions without changing this
sentence.  Since I voted against, I felt obligated to propose an
improvement.

-Geoffrey


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