My votes are below. Neil 339 yes 1336 no I will change my vote to yes if the following changes are made. 1. There appears to be something wrong with the sentence added to 9.3.2 From: Use restricted inside function calls (See 13.4) Functions To: Has restricted usage inside function calls (See 13.4). 2. Section 13.4.4 Brad offered the following suggestion. This would make this change consistent with the line immediately above it. From: A constant function shall not have any fork constructs. To: A constant function shall not contain any fork constructs. 3. Section 13.4.5 From: From within a function, a fork-join_none construct may contain any statements that are legal from within a task. To: Within a function, a fork-join_none construct may contain any statements that are legal within a task. 1384 yes 1560 no I will change my vote to yes if this one change is removed from the proposal. Why change the word prototype to syntax? All of the Queue methods described in 7.11.2 mention the word prototype. Why is it being changed to syntax for just the delete method? 1594 yes, with the following friendly ammendments Two minor word-smithing problems: 1) operand --> operands 2) wild card --> wildcard From: The logical equality (or case equality) operator is a legal operation if either operand is a class object or the literal null and one of the operand is... To: The logical equality (or case equality) operator is a legal operation if either operand is a class object or the literal null and one of the operands is... From: wild card To: wildcard 1608 no section 8.4 There is something wrong with this sentence "Assignment of a class object which class datatype is assignment compatible with the target class object" Something like the following seems more correct: Assignment of a class object which is datatype assignment compatible with the target class object 1615 yes - agree to close (covered by 1336) 1679 yes 1715 yes Minor correction: I think that the reference to clause 15 should actually be to 15.5. 1871 yes 1897 yes 1928 yes If none of John's comments are incorporated into 1928 we should open a new mantis item to address John's feedback. 2007 yes Mehdi Mohtashemi wrote On 10/02/07 08:17 PM,: > Hi, > Based on October 1 2007 sv-ec meeting, we are conducting > an email vote on the following mantis items: > > 339 1336 1384 1560 1594 1608 1615 1679 1715 1871 1897 1928 > 2007 > > Operating guidelines for sv-ec email vote: > - Only one (1) week to respond (Midnight October 10 2007) > - An issue passes if there are zero ** NO ** votes and at least > half of the eligible voters respond with a YES vote. > - Any NO vote must be accompanied by a reason. > This issue will then be up for discussion at the next conference call. > - Please indicate any friendly amendment that you think will change > your vote to a YES, this will help with completing our task. > > - Notes: > * 1615: the vote for mantis item 1615 is to close it, covered by 1336. > * 1928: re-approve. If needed sv-ec can open another mantis item > > As of the October 1 2007 meeting, the eligible voters are (total 15): > > Arturo Salz, > Cliff Cummings > Dave Rich > Francoise Martinolle > Gordon Vreugdenhil > Neil Korpusik > Ray Ryan > Steven Sharp > Stu Sutherland > Heath Chambers > Don Mills > Mark Hartoog > Geoffrey Coram > David Scott > Mike Burns > > > Please mark your vote below by an x. If No, then specify a reason. > Send it to the reflector. > > 339 ___ Yes ___ No > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000339 > > 1336 ___ Yes ___ No > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001336 > > 1384 ___ Yes ___ No > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001384 > > 1560 ___ Yes ___ No > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001560 > > 1594 ___ Yes ___ No > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001594 > > 1608 ___ Yes ___ No > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001608 > > 1615 ___ Yes ___ No CLOSE 1615, covered by 1336 > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001615 > > 1679 ___ Yes ___ No > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001679 > > 1715 ___ Yes ___ No > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001715 > > 1871 ___ Yes ___ No > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001871 > > 1897 ___ Yes ___ No > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001897 > > 1928 ___ Yes ___ No Re-approve. If needed open other mantis > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001928 > > 2007 ___ Yes ___ No > http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002007 > > > > 339 typos in queue methods > 1336 Rules for allowed statements in a function > 1384 bit stream cast and pack/unpack for protected./local members > 1560 Queue delete() method for entire array > 1594 conditional operator for class handles incorrect > 1608 equality, inequality and conditional operator rules for class > handles > 1615 can processes spawned by functions execute blocking statements? > 1679 string casting statement unclear > 1715 Triggered property of a clocking block > 1871 clarification needed for illegal/ignore transition bins > 1897 clarify "union of all significant bins" and "overlapping bins" in > coverage computation > 1928 clarification of coverpoint value resolution (18.5.6) > 2007 7.9.4: rules about int type index for associative arrays > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Neil Korpusik Tel: 408-276-6385 Frontend Technologies (FTAP) Fax: 408-276-5092 Sun Microsystems email: neil.korpusik@sun.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Oct 10 19:00:07 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 10 2007 - 19:00:28 PDT