RE: [sv-ec]E-mail Vote: Closes 12am PST October 26th 2007

> Please mark your vote below by an x. If No, then specify a reason. 
> Send it to the reflector.
> 
> 
> 885  _X_ Yes   ___ No    CLOSE 885, covered by 339
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000885        
>
> 1384  _X_ Yes   ___ No     
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001384        

Though I would prefer that the term "property" be used instead of "member",
since "member" includes class methods, which are not streamed.

> 1609  _X_ Yes   ___ No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001609        
> 
> 1715  ___ Yes   _X_ No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001715        

I agree with the objections to the need for run-time tracking and
checking to prevent explicit triggering of the clocking event.  I had
assumed that the "read-only" nature of the clocking event meant only
that it could not be assigned to.  I assumed that it could be explicitly
triggered like any other event, though users would presumably refrain
from doing so.  If allowing it to be explicitly triggered is considered
too dangerous, and must therefore be disallowed, then I would say that
it isn't quite the same as an event after all.

I agree that the .triggered "property" (it is actually more like a method)
is still reasonable to allow.

> 1723  _X_ Yes   ___ No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001723        
> 
> 1851  _X_ Yes   ___ No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001851        

I also approve of the change from "local parameter" to "localparam".

> 2021  _X_ Yes   ___ No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002021        
> 
> 2055  ___ Yes   ___ No   _X_ Abstain
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002055        

I abstain, as I don't know what users would actually prefer.

> 2113  _X_ Yes   ___ No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002113        
>
> 2137  ___ Yes   _X_ No  
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002137        

I think there are wordsmithing problems here.  First, there is the fact
that the sentence before the bullets in 9.2 talks about there being four
constructs, but there are 7 main bullets (after the always_* bullets are
indented properly).  Second, the section title and that sentence indicate
that the purpose of the section is to list the structured procedures.  I
am not convinced that a sequence match subroutine_call counts as a structured
procedure.  It only allows a subroutine call, rather than being a wrapper
for general procedural code.

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com


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