Re: [sv-ec]E-mail Vote: Closes 12am PST December 15 2007

No on 2055 (repeating my vote against the same proposal on October 26) 
and No on 2181 just owing to confusion.

Yes to the remainder.

-- David Scott, Mentor Graphics


Mehdi Mohtashemi wrote:
>
>  Section a)
> CLOSE following mantis items, covered by 1702
>  412  _X_ Yes   ___ No  
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000412        
>
>  516  _X_ Yes   ___ No     
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000516        
>
>  517  _X_ Yes   ___ No     
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000517        
>
>  518  _X_ Yes   ___ No     
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000518        
>
>  519  _X_ Yes   ___ No     
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000519        
>
>  520  _X_ Yes   ___ No     
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000520        
>
>  521  _X_ Yes   ___ No     
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000521        
>
>  522  _X_ Yes   ___ No     
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000522        
>
>  801  _X_ Yes   ___ No     
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000801        
>
>  974  _X_ Yes   ___ No  
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000974        
>  
>
>   Section b)
>       958, 1447,
>      1858 [contains two proposals:
>               1858-randomize_with_syntax.htm]
> 	        1858_local.pdf
>      2055, 2137, 2181 2227 
>
>
>  958  _X_ Yes   ___ No  
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=000958        
>
>  1447  _X_ Yes   ___ No  
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001447        
>   
>  
>  1858  [Multiple proposal files]
>   1858-randomize_with_syntax.htm       _X_ Yes   ___ No  
>   1858_local.pdf                       _X_ Yes   ___ No     
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001858        
>   
>  2055  ___ Yes   _X_ No  
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002055

NOTE: 2055 IS A REDUNDANT VOTE. THE PROPOSAL FROM OCTOBER 20 HAS NOT 
BEEN MODIFIED SINCE THE LAST VOTE ON OCTOBER 26. My objections 
previously were:

There was nothing unclear in the previous description; this is an 
arbitrary change and introduces incompatibility with 1800-2005. I think 
we need to debate how compelling is this change for typical users and 
weigh that carefully against the incompatibility.

>        
>  
>  2137  _X_ Yes   ___ No  
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002137        
>  
>  2181  ___ Yes   _X_ No  
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002181        
>   

I apologize if I wasn't paying attention sometime and am arguing from 
ignorance, but I am confused between "rules" and "productions". The text 
of 17.17 defines what is a "production" but not what is a "rule". The 
BNF in Syntax 17-2 seems to show productions containing rules which in 
turn contain productions, so that doesn't help me.

Consequently, I can't tell if there are red strike-throughs missing in 
this proposal. Is the new third paragraph supplemental to the first or 
supposed to replace it? What led me to think that red strike-throughs 
are missing is that "For example:" in the second paragraph is followed 
by another paragraph, not an example. The second paragraph seems to me 
surely to be intended as deleted (requiring red strike-throughs) -- but 
I can't tell about the first paragraph owing to my own confusion between 
"rules" and "productions".

>  2227  _X_ Yes   ___ No  
>  http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0002227        
>  
>
>
> section a) 
>      412 5.14.1 Queue operator examples use aggregate constructors
> incorrectly
>      522 use of concatenation in 5.14.2 (Francoise)
>      521 pattern assignment for queues (Francoise)
>      520 example of queues assignment (Francoise)
>      519 section 5.14,empty array literal syntax (Francoise)
>      518 queues and arrays (Francoise)
>      517 concatenation syntax usage section 5.14 (Francoise)
>      516 5.7 and 5.8 description of type compatible arrays
>      801 Errors in assignment pattern in 5.4 example
>      974 comparison of dynamic arrays/queues to 1-dimensional fixed
> arrays 
>
> section  b)
>     1858 Name binding in inline constraints 
>          two separate proposals
>     1447 Contradictory stmts about unsized array dimensions (5.1 vs. 5.7
> and 5.8) 
>      958 dynamic array size method unclear when empty
>     2055 coverage bin distribution is not even
>     2137 Some assertion contexts should be procedural
>     2181 Ambiguity implicit declaration of production variables in
> randsequence 
>
>   


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