RE: [sv-ec]E-mail Vote: Closed October 10th 2007

From: Mehdi Mohtashemi <Mehdi.Mohtashemi_at_.....>
Date: Fri Oct 12 2007 - 15:25:17 PDT
Here is the result of the email vote that closed on
October 10th 2007.   Eight mantis passed, 5 did not pass.
 Voted:  10
  Dave Rich, Gord, Don, Geoffrey, cliff, Heath, David Scott, Mike Burns,
Neil, Ray,
 Did not vote:  5
  Arturo, Francoise, Steven, Stu, Mark

         PASS:         339, 1384, 1615, 1679, 1871, 1897, 1928, 2007.
 DID NOT PASS:  1336, 1560, 1594, 1608, 1715.


 [The full details on the vote are appended at the bottom of this email]

  
  339  YES 10, NO  0
 1336  YES  8, NO  2
 1338  YES 10, NO  0
 1560  YES  9, NO  1
 1594  YES  9, NO  1
 1608  YES  9, NO  1
 1615  YES 10, NO  0
 1679  YES  9, NO  0  [Abstain 1]
 1715  YES  9, NO  1
 1871  YES 10, NO  0
 1897  YES  8, NO  0  [Abstain 2]
 1928  YES 10, NO  0
 2007  YES 10, NO  0

We will review the failed proposals during our next meeting on
Monday October 15, 2007.
- Mehdi


=================================================================
339   Yes 1111111111
      No     

1336  Yes 1111n111n1
  MichaelBurns:
  Friendly amendment: this sentence needs wordsmithing:

  13.4.5, 2nd sentence:
  "Thus, a process calling a function shall return immediately."

  I think I know what it's trying to say, but the wording seems wrong -
processes don't return. How about this:

  "Thus, a process calling a function shall not block, and shall
continue execution immediately when the function returns."

  I vote yes even if people argue with my amendment.


      No      11
  Cliff: 
   I think there are problems with the example (no constructor). 
   The final block claims that any statement that is legal in a 
   function is legal in an always block. This now permits 
   nonblocking assignments to be used in a final block, 
   which I am not sure is a good idea in a final block.

  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.


      propoasl updated by Dave.

1384  Yes  1111111111
      No   


1560  Yes  11111111n1
      No  1

  Neil:
     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  1n11111111
  Geoffrey:Friendly amendment in 1594,
           "one of the operand is" -> "one of the operands is"
  [DR] Although the proposal seems to address 1608
  Neil: 

   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

      No   1

Gord:    I don't have any objection to what is intended, but
   the wording says:
          ...the operator compares the values of the class objects...
   I think we should say "class object handles" here so that there
   is no confusion about interpreting this as a member-wise
   comparison.

   With the word "handles" added, I would vote "yes".



1608  Yes 11111111n1
[DR] Although the proposal seems to address 1594
  Geoffrey Friendly amendment in 1608,
        "as if the expression was the literal null" -> "as if the
expression were the literal null"


      No  1
   Neil: 
    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  CLOSE 1615, covered by 1336
      Yes  1111111111
      No    




1679  Yes  a111111111
      No  

      ABSTAIN   1
[DR]  Abstain - original wording was clear




1715  Yes  n111111111
    Neil:
        Minor correction:
     I think that the reference to clause 15 should actually be to 15.5.

      No   1
[DR] An informative note this lengthy implies 
     that the normative text is not clear enough, 
     or this enhancement it not really justified.
 

1871  Yes  1111111111
      No

1897  Yes  1111a11a11
      No
      ABSTAIN   11
    Cliff:
    (This is a rather complex enhancement to be passed by an email vote)
   MichaelBurns: 
    I haven't been following this and there's a lot here.


1928  Re-approve. If needed open other mantis
      Yes  1111111111
   Neil: 
     If none of John's comments are incorporated into 1928 we should
open a
     new mantis item to address John's feedback.
      
      No

2007  Yes  1111111111
      No


 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














































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



-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Fri Oct 12 15:24:31 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 12 2007 - 15:24:41 PDT